Max I. Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy Industries

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the second factor addresses in part whether an award of fees to a plaintiff will deplete Plan assets to the detriment of other beneficiaries
• observing that the EAJA “entitles a prevailing party in many types of suit against the government to a reasonable attorney’s fee ‘unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.’ ”
• adapting presumption used in Equal Access to Justice Act cases to ERISA milieu
• “nor do pension plan participants and beneficiaries constitute a vulnerable group whose members need special encouragement to exercise their legal rights, like a racial minority”
• factor 2 weighs against award if plan assets are source of funds and payment would hurt plan beneficiaries
• district court has discretion to deny fees for suit “so completely without hope of succeeding that the court can infer that the plaintiff brought it to harass the defendant rather than to obtain a favorable judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).