Torres v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company et al, No. 3:2007cv00202 - Document 64 (D. Or. 2009)
Court Description: Opinion and Order - The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Notice of Appeal Fee 61 and AWARDS costs to Plaintiff in the amount of $455.00. Signed on 7/1/2009 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (See formal Opinion and Order, 4-pages) (ecp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON DONNA OSBOURNE TORRES, 07-CV-202-BR Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC.; and the TEKTRONIX, INC., LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendants. SAMUEL T. STANKE 1400 S.W. Montgomery Street Portland, OR 97201 (503) 224-1127 Attorney for Plaintiff SAMUEL K. ANDERSON Davis Rothwell Earle & Xochihua, PC 1900 Wells Fargo Center 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97201-5604 (503) 222-4422 1 - OPINION AND ORDER JOSHUA BACHRACH Rawle & Henderson, LLP The Widener Building One South Penn Square 16th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 575-4200 Attorneys for Defendants BROWN, Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Notice of Appeal Fee (#61). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion and awards costs to Plaintiff in the amount of $455.00. BACKGROUND On February 12, 2007, Plaintiff Donna Osbourne Torres filed a Complaint in this Court in which she alleged Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. ยง 1132(a)(1)(B), and defamed Plaintiff. On May 22, 2007, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in which she alleged Defendants violated ERISA when they denied her claim for Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits. On September 26, 2007, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that Defendants did not abuse their discretion when they denied Plaintiff's claim for benefits under the Plan. On October 22, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Cross-Motion for Summary 2 - OPINION AND ORDER Judgment. On March 14, 2008, the Court issued an Opinion and Order in which it granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. On that same date, the Court entered a Judgment dismissing this matter with prejudice. On April 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed an appeal. On April 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the matter to this Court for further proceedings. On March 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Notice of Appeal Fee. DISCUSSION Plaintiff seeks costs of $455.00 incurred for filing her Notice of Appeal. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's request. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(a)(3) and (e)(4) provides in pertinent part: [I]f a judgment is reversed, costs are taxed against the appellee. * * * The following costs on appeal are taxable in the district court for the benefit of the party entitled to costs under this rule: (4) the fee for filing the notice of appeal. The Court finds Plaintiff's costs are allowed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 and are both reasonable and supported by the evidence in this matter. 3 - OPINION AND ORDER Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff $455.00 in costs. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Notice of Appeal Fee (#61) and AWARDS costs to Plaintiff in the amount of $455.00. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 1st day of July, 2009. /s/ Anna J. Brown ANNA J. BROWN United States District Judge 4 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
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.
