Kenneth Koenig, et al v. Aetna Life Insurance Comp, No. 16-20674 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 31, 2018.
Download PDF
Case: 16-20674 Document: 00514639568 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/12/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-20674 FILED September 12, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk NORTH CYPRESS MEDICAL CENTER OPERATING COMPANY, LIMITED; NORTH CYPRESS MEDICAL CENTER OPERATING COMPANY GP, L.L.C., Plaintiffs–Appellees Cross-Appellants v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant Cross-Appellee Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CV-359 Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* We previously remanded to allow the district court to explain its denial of attorney fees to NCMC. See N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., Ltd v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 898 F.3d 461, 485–86 (5th Cir. 2018). This limited remand rested on the rule that “[a] district court must explain its decision to deny fees.” Leipzig v. Principle Life Ins. Co., 481 F. App’x 865, 872 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-20674 Document: 00514639568 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/12/2018 No. 16-20674 CenterPoint Energy Hous. Elec. LLC v. Harris Cnty. Toll Rd. Auth., 436 F.3d 541, 550–51 (5th Cir. 2006)). The district court promptly responded. In its order on remand, the district court correctly noted “[i]t is the ERISA claim that gives rise to NCMC’s claim for attorneys’ fees.” N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., Ltd v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 4:13–CV–359, slip op. at 1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2018) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1)). It then reasoned that because it dismissed NCMC’s ERISA claims—and because a jury found against NCMC on its only remaining claims—attorney fees under § 1132(g)(1) “would be inappropriate.” Id. We have generally said a district court deciding whether to award fees under § 1132(g)(1) should consider the five factors articulated in Iron Workers Local No. 272 v. Bowen, 624 F.2d 1255, 1266 (5th Cir. 1980). See, e.g., Todd v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 47 F.3d 1448, 1458 (5th Cir. 1995). But the Supreme Court requires that a claimant “show ‘some degree of success on the merits’ before a court may award fees.” Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242, 255 (2010) (quoting Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 694 (1983)). “A claimant does not satisfy that requirement by achieving trivial success on the merits or a purely procedural victory.” Id. (cleaned up). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in concluding, as explained on remand, that attorney fees were not available to NCMC under ERISA because its only claims under that statute were dismissed. We AFFIRM. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
