Board of Trustees of the Iunhcamp Health & Welfare Fund v. Progressive Health Alliance

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellants Progressive Health Alliance and Raymond Palombo appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for an award of attorney’s fees following the court’s dismissal of an action by the Board *64 of Trustees of the International Union for the Natural Health, Complementary & Alternative Medicine Professions (the “Board of Trustees”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Corder v. Howard Johnson & Co., 53 F.3d 225, 229 (9th Cir.1994). In the instant case, the district court determined that it lacked authority to grant the appellants’ motion for attorney’s fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (g)(1) because it dismissed the Board of Trustees’ ERISA action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellants argue that the district court should have awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (g)(1), because the Board of Trustees “colorably maintained” that it had a viable action under ERISA by aggressively pursuing unfounded ERISA claims throughout the proceedings.

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (g)(1),…