HARRISON v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 13-cv-05585-VC. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160506a10
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 05, 2016
Latest Update: May 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . As discussed at the hearing, Harrison should file a supplemental submission that: 1. Distinguishes between fees and costs arising from Harrison's "any occupation" administrative proceedings, and those arising from the litigation and administrative proceedings (if any) that took place after the lawsuit was filed relating to Harrison's contention that she was unable to perform her "own occupation"; 2. Bills paral
Summary: ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . As discussed at the hearing, Harrison should file a supplemental submission that: 1. Distinguishes between fees and costs arising from Harrison's "any occupation" administrative proceedings, and those arising from the litigation and administrative proceedings (if any) that took place after the lawsuit was filed relating to Harrison's contention that she was unable to perform her "own occupation"; 2. Bills parale..
More
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
As discussed at the hearing, Harrison should file a supplemental submission that:
1. Distinguishes between fees and costs arising from Harrison's "any occupation" administrative proceedings, and those arising from the litigation and administrative proceedings (if any) that took place after the lawsuit was filed relating to Harrison's contention that she was unable to perform her "own occupation";
2. Bills paralegals' clerical work at an appropriate clerical rate.
In addition, the Court is tentatively of the view that a 10% prejudgment interest rate is too high to compensate Harrison for the losses she incurred as a result of the Plan's nonpayment of benefits. See Dishman v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 269 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). For this reason, Harrison's supplemental filing should calculate a prejudgment interest rate consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1961. If Harrison believes that this is not the appropriate measure of prejudgment interest, she may also make an argument to that effect, but only after calculating the interest rate under section 1961.
If the defendants wish to respond to Harrison's supplemental submission, they may do so within seven days of that submission's filing date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
