ERISA Fee Entitlement Not Shown And The Winning ERISA Argument Was Not Raised Until Judgment Creditor’s Assignee Racked Up More Judgment Enforcement Expenses.
Everyone does need to keep in mind, within certain legal strictures, that attorney’s fees awards are frequently driven by the equities of a case. Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Bennett, Case No. G059552 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 7, 2022) (published) demonstrates that perfectly.
This case involved very protracted, tenacious litigation between a judgment creditor’s assignee and judgment debtor, with a lower court eventually concluding that certain assets of the debtor were exempt from levy based on ERISA protections even though those winning arguments were raised deep into the proceedings such that the trial judge had to exercise inherent authority to redetermine the dispositive issue. Judgment creditor was granted some additional post-judgment enforcement costs under CCP §§ 685.040 and 685.070 (with judgment debtor’s motion to tax costs being denied). The lower court also denied judgment debtor’s request for attorney’s fees as the “prevailing” party.
The 4/3 DCA affirmed, in an opinion authored by Orange County Superior Court Judge Linda Marks, sitting by assignment. With respect to the fee denial, it was correct because (1) judgment debtor brought it with no invitation to do so by the lower court, and (2) judgment debtor provided no authority that this was a true ERISA action which allows prevailing party fees as opposed to raising an ERISA argument in a civil state court action. Furthermore, granting fees to judgment debtor would be inequitable given his stalwart resistance to the other side’s collection efforts. On the post-judgment costs awarded to judgment creditor’s assignee, that ruling was no abuse of discretion given that the ERISA argument was raised late in the game and the issues were complex, justifying the costs claimed by the other side.
Comments