UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2297
FELDMAN'S MEDICAL CENTER PHARMACY, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CAREFIRST, INCORPORATED,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Susan K. Gauvey, Magistrate Judge.
(1:10-cv-00254-SKG)
Submitted: September 6, 2013 Decided: October 9, 2013
Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Paduano, PADUANO & WEINTRAUB, LLP, New York, New York,
for Appellant. Anthony F. Shelley, MILLER & CHEVALIER
CHARTERED, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Feldman’s Medical Center Pharmacy, Inc. appeals the
district court’s denial of its motion for attorney’s fees. We
affirm.
In June 2009, Feldman’s filed a complaint against
CareFirst, Inc. in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County,
Maryland, seeking reimbursement for medication it had dispensed
to CareFirst’s insureds. CareFirst removed the case to the
district court, which later denied Feldman’s motion for remand
on the ground that at least one of Feldman’s claims was
preempted by ERISA. In August 2010, CareFirst advised the
district court that it was willing to voluntarily pay Feldman’s
claims based upon an advisory opinion from the Maryland Board of
Pharmacy that shed light on the underlying dispute. Thereafter,
CareFirst paid Feldman’s claims for reimbursement in their
entirety, plus $23,017.00 in interest.
After CareFirst paid, Feldman’s asserted that CareFirst had
improperly calculated the amount of interest owed, which
Feldman’s claimed was $886,483.93 (in addition to the amount
already paid by CareFirst), and moved for summary judgment on
that issue. The district court ultimately granted Feldman’s an
additional $11,983.00 in interest. Feldman’s thereafter moved
for attorney’s fees, which the district court denied. Feldman's
2
Med. Ctr. Pharm., Inc. v. CareFirst, Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d 883
(D. Md. 2012).
In an ERISA action, a district court has discretion under
29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) to award costs and reasonable attorney’s
fees to either party, so long as the party has (1) achieved
“some degree of success on the merits,” and (2) is entitled to
an award under the five factors we set forth in Quesinberry v.
Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 987 F.2d 1017, 1029 (4th Cir. 1993).
Williams v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 609 F.3d 622, 634–35 (4th Cir.
2010) (quoting Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 S.
Ct. 2149 (2010)). We review the district court’s denial of
Feldman’s motion for abuse of discretion. Id. at 634.
The district court found Feldman’s had not achieved “some
success on the merits” because (1) its lawsuit was not the
catalyst causing CareFirst to pay the claims at issue, and (2)
the award of prejudgment interest in favor of Feldman’s was
“trivial” since the court rejected Feldman’s central theory for
calculating the interest owed and ultimately awarded a much
lower amount than Feldman’s sought. Feldman's Med. Ctr. Pharm.,
Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d at 897–907. Further, the court held that
even if Feldman’s had achieved some success on the merits, it
was still not entitled to an award of fees under the Quesinberry
factors. Feldman’s noted a timely appeal. On appeal, Feldman’s
contests both of these rulings.
3
Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the district
court’s opinion, and the applicable law, we affirm substantially
on the reasoning of the district court’s order. Feldman's Med.
Ctr. Pharm., Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d 883. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before us and oral argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4