18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 323 participants. For these reasons, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. (v) Attorneys ’ Fees And Costs In ERISA Class Actions Baker, et al. v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co., Case No. 20-CV-103987 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of participants in the Investment-Incentive Plan for John Hancock employees, filed a class action alleging that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the Plan in violation of the ERISA. The parties ultimately settled the matter and the Court granted preliminary settlement approval. After notice was sent to the class, Plaintiffs filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and class representative service awards. The Court granted the motion. Under the terms of the settlement, Defendants agreed to distribute $14 million into a settlement fund. Plaintiffs requested $3.5 million for attorneys’ fees. The Court found that the request was reasonable and adequate. The Court also determined that Plaintiffs’ request for $38,475.13 for reimbursement of litigation costs was reasonable. The Court reviewed the expenses and found them to be reasonable and appropriate. Id . at 2. The Court also granted Plaintiffs’ request for an service award to the named Plaintiffs of $10,000 each. It determined that those awards were justified given the facts of the case and their involvement in the matter. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ requests for attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards. Moitoso, et al. v. FMR LLC, Case No. 18-CV-12122 (D. Mass. Feb. 26, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former employees of FMR LLC and beneficiaries of the Fidelity Employers’ defined contribution 401(k) retirement plan, filed a class action alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in violation of the ERISA. The parties ultimately settled the matter and the Court granted preliminary settlement approval. After notice to the class, the Court thereafter held a fairness hearing and considered Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of attorneys’ fees and costs, administrative expenses, and class representative service awards. Defendant did not oppose Plaintiffs’ requests. Having considered the motion and the evidentiary support, the Court granted the request of Plaintiffs’ counsel for a fee award of $9,002,127.67. Id . at 1. The Court determined that the requested amount of fees, which equated to one-third of the $28.5 million settlement fund, was reasonable and appropriate. Id . The Court likewise determined that the request for $1,378,437.13 in costs should be approved. The Court reviewed the expenses and held that they were reasonable and appropriate given the nature of the action. Id. at 2. Finally, the Court approved $10,000 service awards to four class representatives, as it found that the awards were justified under the facts of the case. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs, expenses, and class representative service awards. Peer, et al. v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 992 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff, a life insurance plan participant, filed a class action alleging that Defendant improperly denied her benefits under its policy entitling a waiver of premiums to those injured and unable to work for the duration of their disability. Defendant thereafter reinstated Plaintiff’s coverage and waived the premium benefit retroactive to the original termination date. The District Court ruled that Plaintiff’s claims were rendered moot by the reinstatement of coverage under the waiver of premium. Plaintiff subsequently filed two amended complaints, and the District Court dismissed one count and entered judgement on the pleadings on the other, finding that the count was not ripe because Plaintiff was seeking an advisory opinion about her rights. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Thereafter, the parties moved for attorneys’ fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). The District Court granted Plaintiff attorneys’ fees for work performed from the commencement of her suit until her policy was reinstated, and awarded Defendant attorneys’ fees incurred for any work performed after the reinstatement of Plaintiff’s policy, including fees for litigating the appeal. Id . at 1262. The District Court directed Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s fees, and Plaintiff’s counsel to pay Defendant’s fees. On appeal of the attorneys’ fee award, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling. The Eleventh Circuit explained that under the ERISA’s fee-shifting statute the District Court in its discretion “may allow a reasonable attorneys’ fee and costs of action to either party." Id . at 1263. However, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that because the ERISA was silent about who must pay a fee award, the statute did not allow the District Court to award fees against a party’s lawyers. Id . Further, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that its reading of the statute comported with the longstanding rule that clients are responsible for the actions of their lawyers. Finally, the Eleventh Circuit opined that reading the fee-shifting provision to allow an award of fees against a lawyer would circumvent procedures to sanction attorney misconduct. Id . The Eleventh Circuit thus vacated the fee award that the District Court entered against Plaintiff’s