Case 2:21-cv-00749-MEMF-MRW Document 80 Filed 01/24/23 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:5506

1 JS-6, O 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 2:21-cv-00749-MEMF-MRWx 11 IAN ROBINSON,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT IN

FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT

13 v. OF $236,000; AND GRANTING IN PART

MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’

14 FEES AND COSTS [ECF NO. 70] 15 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17

18 19 20 Before the Court is the Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiff Ian 21 Robinson. ECF No. 70. For the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby GRANTS Judgment in favor 22 of Plaintiff Ian Robinson in the amount of $236,000, and GRANTS IN PART the Motion for Award 23 of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. 24 25 26 27 / / / 28 / / /

1 Case 2:21-cv-00749-MEMF-MRW Document 80 Filed 01/24/23 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:5507

1 I. Background 2 A. Factual Background 3 This case concerns an insurance dispute following the tragic death of Vincent B., the stepson 4 of Plaintiff Ian Robinson (“Robinson”). In March of 2018, Plaintiff Ian Robinson and his dependent 5 child Vincent B. were covered under a group accident insurance policy for Accidental Death and 6 Dismemberment (“Policy”), underwritten by Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of 7 Pittsburgh, PA (“NUFIC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant American International Group, 8 Inc. (“AIG”), and held by Raytheon Company, Robinson’s employer. Defendants’ Response to 9 Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, ECF No. 49 (“DRPUF”) ¶¶ 1, 9. Vincent B. passed away on March 5, 10 2018, as a result of multiple blunt injuries he suffered when he either fell or jumped from his 11 family’s third floor balcony. Id. ¶¶ 2, 22. After Vincent B.’s death, Robinson filed a claim seeking 12 death benefits under the Policy. Id. ¶ 10. His claim was denied initially, and the denial was reiterated 13 on appeal. Id. ¶¶ 12, 21, 28. At the heart of this dispute is the question of whether Vincent B. 14 accidentally fell from the balcony—in which case his death is covered under the Policy—or whether 15 he committed suicide by jumping from the balcony—in which case his death is not covered under 16 the Policy. 17 B. Procedural History 18 Robinson filed suit in federal court against NUFIC and AIG (collectively, the “AIG 19 Entities”) seeking to recover benefits, attorneys’ fees, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest 20 under the Policy, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. 21 §§ 1132(a)(1)(B), (g)(1). See generally First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 9 (“FAC”). Both 22 Robinson and the AIG Entities filed motions for summary judgment. See Defendants’ Motion for 23 Summary Judgment, ECF No. 28 (“Dft. MSJ”); Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 24 38 (“Pltf. MSJ”). On September 22, 2022, the Court issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for 25 Judgment and Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment. ECF No. 69. Robinson was ordered to 26 submit a proposed judgment and any motion seeking costs or fees. Id. 27 On October 10, 2022, Robinson filed the instant Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and 28 Costs. ECF No. 70 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). The Motion included a separate Memorandum of Points 2 Case 2:21-cv-00749-MEMF-MRW Document 80 Filed 01/24/23 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:5508

1 and Authorities in Support of Prejudgment Interest. ECF No. 70-3 (“Prejudgment Interest MPA”). 2 The Motion was fully briefed on October 31, 2022. See ECF Nos. 76 (“Opp’n”), 77 (“Reply”). The 3 Court deemed this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and took the Motion 4 under submission. ECF No. 78. 5 II. Applicable Law 6 “A district court may award prejudgment interest on an award of ERISA benefits at its 7 discretion.” Blankenship v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 486 F.3d 620, 627 (9th Cir. 2007). Although 8 a court may compensate a plaintiff for “the losses he incurred as a result of [the defendant’s] 9 nonpayment of benefits,” “prejudgment interest is an element of compensation, not a penalty.” 10 Dishman v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 269 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). 11 Generally, “the interest rate prescribed for post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is 12 appropriate for fixing the rate of pre-judgment interest unless the trial judge finds, on substantial 13 evidence, that the equities of that particular case require a different rate.” Grosz-Salomon v. Paul 14 Revere Life Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1154, 1164 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. EG&G Energy 15 Measurements Grp., Inc., 37 F.3d 1384, 1391 (9th Cir. 1994)). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, “interest 16 shall be calculated . . . at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, 17 as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week 18 preceding.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). 19 “Substantial evidence” is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 20 accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1575 (9th Cir. 21 1987) (citations omitted) (holding that district court abused its discretion by awarding, on an ERISA 22 award, a prejudgment interest rate below the Treasury bill rate without making a finding as to the 23 equities which justified the departure). 24 III. Discussion 25 Both parties agree, for the purposes of the instant Motion, that attorneys’ fees in the amount 26 of $133,125 are appropriate. Joint Statement RE Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs, 27 ECF No. 79 (“Joint Statement”). Moreover, the Defendants do not appear to object to Robinson’s 28 estimate of costs in the amount of $2,735.25. Id.; see also Opp’n at 1; Reply at 2; ECF No. 70-4.

3 Case 2:21-cv-00749-MEMF-MRW Document 80 Filed 01/24/23 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:5509

1 Moreover, it appears to be undisputed that the benefit claim amounts to $236,000. Opp’n at 3; Reply 2 at 2. As a result, the primary dispute concerns the amount of prejudgment interest Robinson is 3 entitled to. Opp’n at 1; Reply at 2. Robinson contends that: (1) prejudgment interest should be 4 calculated with an interest rate of 10% per annum due to historically high inflation; and (2) 5 prejudgment interest should be calculated as compound interest because NUFIC breached its 6 fiduciary duty under ERISA. Prejudgment Interest MPA at 3–7. Robinson therefore requests 7 $69,666.55 in prejudgment interest. Id. at 7–8. NUFIC, in its Opposition, contends that: (1) the 8 appropriate interest rate is 4.5% under 28 U.S.C. § 19611; and (2) case law suggests that either 9 simple interest or compound annual interest may be appropriate. Opp’n at 3. 10 A. Prejudgment interest shall be calculated at an interest rate of 4.66% per annum. 11 As discussed previously, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “the interest rate prescribed 12 for post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is appropriate for fixing the rate of pre-judgment 13 interest unless the trial judge finds, on substantial evidence, that the equities of that particular case 14 require a different rate.” Grosz-Salomon, 237 F.3d at 1164 (emphasis added). 15 Robinson argues that the equities of his case require a different rate because the historically 16 high inflation since AIG’s wrongful denial of benefits means he was “deprived of this period of high 17 growth” and that he “would have been able to earn considerable returns had he been able to invest 18 his benefit himself.” Reply at 3. Accordingly, Robinson contends that the rate of interest should be 19 that prescribed by California law under CAL. CIV. CODE § 3289—namely, 10% per annum from the 20 date of the breach. CAL. CIV. CODE § 3289(b) (“If a contract entered into after January 1, 1986, does 21 not stipulate a legal rate of interest, the obligation shall bear interest at a rate of 10 percent per 22 annum.”). 23 Robinson has failed to demonstrate that the equities of this case require a different rate, and 24 his reliance on Blankenship v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. to support his position is misplaced. In 25 Blankenship, the district court awarded prejudgment interest at a higher rate than that prescribed in 26 27 1 The Court notes, however, that the parties have since stipulated that the interest rate prescribed for interest 28 under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 for the week ending December 9, 2022, is 4.73%. See Joint Statement.

4 Case 2:21-cv-00749-MEMF-MRW Document 80 Filed 01/24/23 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:5510

1 28 U.S.C. § 1961 only after the claimant furnished evidence—in the form of a declaration— 2 demonstrating that, in the absence of disability payments, they were forced to rely on personal funds 3 to pay living expenses, and that those personal funds would otherwise have been invested in a 4 mutual fund with a high rate of return. Blankenship, 486 F.3d at 628. Robinson has not provided any 5 similar evidence to support his Motion. Although Robinson’s briefing asserts that he was deprived of 6 investment opportunities, Reply at 3, notably absent is any evidence—such as a declaration from 7 Robinson—indicating what he would have done if he had received the funds earlier, much less that 8 he would have invested the benefit in the manner claimed in the Motion. Nor does the Court find 9 that the change in interest rates alone—which has been supported by substantial evidence—is 10 sufficient to tip the equities such that a different rate is required.2 The Court, therefore, awards 11 prejudgment interest at the rate prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1961 on Robinson’s judgment. In 12 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1961, the Court finds that the prejudgment interest shall be calculated 13 at the rate of 4.66% per annum.3 14 B. Simple interest is appropriate in the instant case. 15 Robinson further contends that the Court should exercise its discretion to award compound 16 interest because AIG breached its fiduciary duty to “properly investigate [Robinson’s] claim, failed 17 to follow the law by mischaracterizing evidence in the record, neglected to provide Plaintiff with 18 19 2 See Atwood v. PCC Structurals, Inc., 2015 WL 9480024, at *4 (D. Or. Dec. 28, 2015) (“If shifting interest rates were all that was required to demonstrate ‘substantial evidence,’ then the calculation of prejudgment 20 interest in every case would be based upon an average of annual interest rates, as Plaintiff urges, rather than a statutorily dictated rate.”). 21 3 See “Current Applicable Rates,” Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/post-judgment-interest-rate (last visited January 23, 2023) 22 (“Under each of the above statutes [including 28 U.S.C. § 1961] the rate of interest used in calculating the amount of post judgment interest is the weekly average 1-year constant maturity (nominal) Treasury yield, as 23 published by the Federal Reserve System. . . . . Additionally, as of October 11, 2016, the Board no longer 24 publishes the H.15 [the Federal Reserve Board Selected Interest Rates statistical release] in PDF format or publish weekly and monthly averages directly on the H.15. Weekly and monthly averages continue to be 25 available through the Board’s Data Download Program.”); “Data Download Program,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H.15 (last 26 visited January 23, 2023) (applicable data pulled for the week of January 20, 2023). Although the parties stipulated that the interest rate prescribed for interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 for the 27 week ending December 9, 2022, was 4.73%, the Court finds that the appropriate interest rate for that week was 4.72%—the interest rate listed for the week of December 9, 2022. The Court finds that the appropriate 28 interest rate now is 4.66%—the interest rate listed for the week of January 20, 2023 (i.e. the week preceding the date of this Order and Judgment).

5 Case 2:21-cv-00749-MEMF-MRW Document 80 Filed 01/24/23 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:5511

1 additional information it would have needed to perfect his claim, shifted its justification for denying 2 benefits, and failed to credit reliable evidence in the record.” Prejudgment Interest MPA at 7. In 3 support of this argument, Robinson cites to a number of cases for the proposition that “the court has 4 discretion to award compound interest when there is a finding of wrongdoing on the part of a 5 fiduciary and is not an abuse of discretion.” Id. However, the Court notes that none of these cases 6 involve the award of compound interest in relation to a prejudgment interest. The Ninth Circuit has 7 made clear that “[p]rejudgment interest is an element of compensation, not a penalty” and that 8 “[a]lthough a defendant’s bad faith conduct may influence whether a court awards prejudgment 9 interest, it should not influence the rate of interest.” Dishman, 269 F.3d at 988. If the defendant’s bad 10 faith should not influence the rate of interest, it stands to reason that an alleged breach of fiduciary 11 duty should not influence whether the Court elects compound or simple interest. By requesting that 12 the Court award compound interest because AIG breached its fiduciary duty under ERISA, Robinson 13 is essentially requesting that the Court impose a penalty on AIG’s conduct—a request that the Court 14 cannot accommodate. The Court therefore concludes that simple interest is appropriate in the instant 15 case. 16 Using the appropriate interest rate of 4.66% and calculated from January 10, 2020, until 17 September 22, 2022, at simple interest, the prejudgment amount due is $29,738.72.4 18 IV. Conclusion 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 20 1. Defendant is liable under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) for the amount of $236,000 in 21 accidental death benefits to plaintiff. Defendant shall satisfy this obligation and shall pay 22 post-judgment interest on any delinquent amounts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 23 2. Defendant shall pay prejudgment interest at the rate of 4.66% per annum, accruing from 24 January 10, 2020; this interest shall be simple interest, for a total amount of $29,738.72 in 25 prejudgment interest owed to plaintiff. 26 27 4 The Court calculated this amount by multiplying the principal amount ($236,000) by the interest rate 28 (4.66%) and the time in years (987 days in the relevant time period divided by 365 days in a year).

6 Case 2:21-cv-00749-MEMF-MRW Document 80 Filed 01/24/23 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:5512

1 3. Defendant is liable under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) for the requested attorneys’ fees in the 2 amount of $133,125 and costs in the amount of $2,735.25. 3 4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the terms 4 of this final judgment. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: January 24, 2023 ___________________________________ 9 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

7