In an ERISA action to enforce a pension guaranty agreement, the District Court’s award of attorney’s fees to Plaintiffs based on the summary judgment they obtained on their ERISA claims is vacated where the District Court erred by taking into account factors relating to non-ERISA claims in the lawsuit in determining the fee award.
Read the full decision in Laforest v. Honeywell Int’l., Inc., No. 06-5712-cv.
Appellate Information:
Argued on May 29, 2008Decided on June 18, 2009
Judges:
Before JACOBS, Chief Judge, CALABRESI and SACK, Circuit Judges. Chief Judge Jacobs concurs in part and dissents in part in a seperate opinion
Opinion by SACK, Circuit Judge.
Counsel:
WILLIAM A. WERTHEIMER, JR., Bingham Farms, Michigan, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
JOSEPH J. COSTELLO (Tasmin J. Newman of counsel), Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for Defendant-Third- Party-Plaintiff-Appellant.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
