Rosenthal v. Roberts — freecase.ai

Full text

Mark ROSENTHAL, as President of Local 983, District Council 37, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, as a Participant or on behalf of the Class of Participants in the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Fay Mitchell, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health and Security Plan Trust, Patrick Bahnken, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Ralph Carbone, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Leonard Davidman, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Gene DeMartino, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Victor Emanuelson, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Juan Fernandez, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Barbara Henderson, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Michael Hood, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Ed Hysyk, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Raymond Markey, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Mickey McFarland, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Alex Parker, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Louis Socha, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Edna Williams, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Faye Moore, Louis Sbar, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust, Robert Schirmer, on behalf of the District Council 37 Health & Security Plan Trust and Stuart Liebowitz, as President of the District Council 37 Retirees Association v. Lillian ROBERTS and Oliver Gray

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs appeal an order of the district court denying their request for attorneys’ fees. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of appellate issues. We hold as follows. The district court could not award attorney’s fees against a non-party to the underlying action. See Toth v. UAW, Local No. 723, 743 F.2d 398, 405 (6th Cir.1984) (“We find no case law authority which supports or recognizes a separate cause of action for attorneys’ fees against a person or entity merely ‘benefit-ted’ by the resolution of another lawsuit in the plaintiffs favor.”); Cantwell v. San Mateo County, 631 F.2d 631, 638-39 (9th Cir.1980) (declining to award fees against other members of defendant retirement system who benefitted from plaintiffs victory in underlying litigation, for several reasons including their non-party status). We note that a separate action against the Trust was commenced in New York state court seeking attorneys’ fees for the same actions that were the subject of this litigation and that an award of attorneys’ fees against the Trust has been made. Plaintiffs cannot, as they argue, obtain fees pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, because relief under the All Writs Act is not “necessary or appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration of the order [the district court] previously issued.” United States v. New York Tel., 434 U.S. 159, 172, 98 S.Ct. 364, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977). [8] We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.