THE LOCAL UNION NO. 98, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS SOUND AND COMMUNICATION HEALTH & WELFARE FUND v. RGB SERVICES, LLC, 2:11-cv-04579

Background

Plaintiffs (Local Union No. 98 and trustees of multi-employer benefit funds) prevailed on ERISA claims against RGB Services, LLC and its owner Michael Metsikas for failing to make fund contributions and to cooperate in a payroll audit.
Plaintiffs sought $81,542.56 in attorney’s fees (Marino and a legal assistant) and $10,700.36 in costs under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1).
Defendants objected to the fee petition, challenging rates, billed hours, certain vague or duplicative entries, pre-filing fees tied to an earlier dismissed action, and some auditor costs.
The court found Defendants acted in bad faith, Plaintiffs reasonably succeeded on all claims, and an award of fees and costs was appropriate to compensate Plaintiffs and deter future ERISA violations.
The court applied the lodestar method, reviewed billing records line-by-line, sustained some objections (striking vague/duplicative entries, courier/coffee costs), but upheld the hourly rates as reasonable based on submitted declarations and local precedent.
Final award: $77,280.85 in attorney’s fees and $10,592.60 in costs (total $88,069.20).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fees and costs are appropriate under ERISA	Fees and costs are authorized when a party achieves some degree of success; Plaintiffs prevailed on all claims	Fees should be denied or reduced given alleged lack of bad faith or limited relief	Award appropriate: court found bad faith, ability to pay, deterrence, and plan benefit support fee award
Reasonableness of hourly rates ($225 for Marino; $85 for paralegal)	Rates are consistent with local market; supported by counsel affidavits and ERISA practitioner declaration	Marino lacks specialized ERISA experience; rates should be reduced ($200) and paralegal rate stricken	Rates upheld as reasonable based on experience, declarations, and district precedent
Sufficiency and scope of billed hours (including pre-filing work)	Time for the earlier dismissed case and subsequent reinstatement is compensable as part of the same enforcement effort	Pre-filing hours duplicative and should be stricken because earlier case was dismissed	Pre-filing and earlier-case hours largely allowed: second suit was a continuation after defendants failed to comply with audit; duplicative/vague entries were struck
Specific challenged entries and costs (internal memos, courier, coffee, auditor costs)	Most entries are related to litigation and auditor was necessary to compute damages	Many entries are vague, excessive, duplicative; courier and coffee unreasonable; auditor costs should not be charged	Court struck vague/duplicative entries, excluded courier and coffee costs, but allowed auditor costs as necessary for calculating contributions

Key Cases Cited

Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 2149 (Supreme Court 2010) (§ 1132(g) allows fees where party achieves some degree of success)
In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits ERISA Litig., 579 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2009) (ERISA fee discretionary factors; proportionality not required)
Nat’l Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Iola, 700 F.3d 65 (3d Cir. 2012) (lists Ursic/ERISA fee factors for court discretion)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method; exclude excessive, redundant, unnecessary hours)
Evans v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J., 273 F.3d 346 (3d Cir. 2001) (necessity of detailed billing records; line-by-line review)
Washington v. Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, 89 F.3d 1031 (3d Cir. 1996) (use prevailing market rates to determine reasonable hourly rate)
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177 (3d Cir. 1990) (opponent may challenge fee petition with specific objections)
Ursic v. Bethlehem Mines, 719 F.2d 670 (3d Cir. 1983) (factors and guidance for assessing fee awards under ERISA)