Moore v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 58

Sixth Circuit

Moore v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 58

60 F. App'x 581

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 28, 2003

DocketNo. 02-2073

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 F. App'x 581 (Moore v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 58) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 58, 60 F. App'x 581 (6th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Lawrence Moore, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court order awarding attorneys’ fees to the defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) of the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).

[582]*582Moore filed suit against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 58, Jeff Radjewski, Thomas Mittelbrun, and several fringe benefit funds (“Funds”) pursuant to ERISA and other statutes. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and this court affirmed the district court's judgment on September 13, 2002, in Case No. 02-1503.

After the district court issued its judgment, the Funds and Mittelbrun filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs on April 1, 2002, arguing in part that Moore was a vexatious litigant who had pursued frivolous labor claims for fifteen years in various jurisdictions. Moore did not file a response until July 29, 2002. Because Moore did not file a response within 14 days as required by court rules, the district court ordered Moore’s response to be stricken from the record. On August 13, 2002, the district court awarded attorneys’ fees to the Funds and Mittelbrun in the amount of $17,227.00, but denied the request for costs. The district court reasoned that a fee award was merited because Moore had brought his claims in bad faith, an award would deter other plan participants from filing frivolous actions, and an award would confer a common benefit on plan participants and beneficiaries who would otherwise bear the cost of defending frivolous litigation.

In his appeal, Moore raises numerous challenges to the award.

Upon review, we conclude that the district court’s judgment must be affirmed. Because Moore failed to timely respond to the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees in the district court, he has waived any objection he had to the defendants’ application for and the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees. See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Binion, 953 F.2d 1013, 1018 (6th Cir.1991).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Lawrence Moore, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court order awarding attorneys’ fees to the defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) of the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).

[582]*582Moore filed suit against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 58, Jeff Radjewski, Thomas Mittelbrun, and several fringe benefit funds (“Funds”) pursuant to ERISA and other statutes. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and this court affirmed the district court's judgment on September 13, 2002, in Case No. 02-1503.

After the district court issued its judgment, the Funds and Mittelbrun filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs on April 1, 2002, arguing in part that Moore was a vexatious litigant who had pursued frivolous labor claims for fifteen years in various jurisdictions. Moore did not file a response until July 29, 2002. Because Moore did not file a response within 14 days as required by court rules, the district court ordered Moore’s response to be stricken from the record. On August 13, 2002, the district court awarded attorneys’ fees to the Funds and Mittelbrun in the amount of $17,227.00, but denied the request for costs. The district court reasoned that a fee award was merited because Moore had brought his claims in bad faith, an award would deter other plan participants from filing frivolous actions, and an award would confer a common benefit on plan participants and beneficiaries who would otherwise bear the cost of defending frivolous litigation.

In his appeal, Moore raises numerous challenges to the award.

Upon review, we conclude that the district court’s judgment must be affirmed. Because Moore failed to timely respond to the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees in the district court, he has waived any objection he had to the defendants’ application for and the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees. See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Binion, 953 F.2d 1013, 1018 (6th Cir.1991).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 F. App'x 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-international-brotherhood-of-electrical-workers-local-58-ca6-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack