In re Vi-Jon, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• relying on the claimant’s asserted “prevailing market rate” where the opposing party failed to produce any evidence to the contrary
• collecting cases and finding that plaintiff was eligible for a fee award where the Court “remanded to LINA because it found that LINA's benefits determination was arbitrary and capricious”
• ERISA’s attorney fee provision, which allows the recovery of costs in the Court’s discretion, is not limited by statute limiting taxation of certain costs
• “In the present case, the Plaintiffs have not identified any individuals or plan beneficiaries that are in similar positions, nor is there any evidence that the Plaintiffs sought to confer a common benefit on others.”
• “Based on the decision to remand the case, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs’ case is the one having more relative merit,” even though there has not been a final decision by the insurance company on remand

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).