Flom

Flom v. Holly Corp.

Good Law
276 F. App'x 615
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 1, 2008No. 06-35954California1,040 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

James D. Flom appeals an order of the district court denying his motion for attorney’s fees. Flom requested fees after Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) reinstated his disability benefits following the district court’s decision to remand his ERISA case to MetLife. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

A prevailing ERISA plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. Smith v. CMTA-IAM Pension Trust, 746 F.2d 587, 589 (9th Cir.1984). In determining whether an ERISA plaintiff has prevailed, we look to case law defining “prevailing party” for purposes of other federal statutes. See id. In that context, a prevailing party is one who achieves a judicially sanctioned and material change in the legal relationship between the parties. Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604-05 , 121 S.Ct. 1835 , 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001).

This judicially-sanctioned change in the parties’ relationship need not be a judgment on the merits, and a prevailing plaintiff need not achieve directly through the judicial order itself the ultimate benefit…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.