Legal Opinion
Huizinga v. Genzink Steel Supply & Welding Co.
District Court, W.D. Michigan
Decided November 25, 2013No. Case No. 1:10-CV-223PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CORRECTED OPINION and ORDER
ROBERT J. JONKER, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Charles Huizinga’s motion for attorney’s fees (docket #218) and Defendants Genzink Steel Supply and Welding Co. and Ken Genzink’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion for attorney’s fees (docket #220). Huizinga requests $171,-748.451 in attorney’s fees and $7,918.13 in costs. Defendants seek $332,607 in attorney’s fees.
I. Background
On March 4, 2010, Huizinga filed a four-count complaint, alleging (1) breach of ERISA fiduciary duty, (2) wrongful discharge under ERISA, (3) violation of the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Janice Adcock-Ladd v. Secretary of Treasury United States Secret Service Department of TreasuryCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- Virginia Armistead, Cross-Appellants v. Vernitron Corporation Aie--Division of Vernitron Group Insurance Plan, Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Matt Johnson, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 43 Health and Welfare Fund, and Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 43 Pension Fund v. Crane Nuclear PFT Corp., Chris Mitchell, and the Tennessee Valley AuthorityDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2026
- McClure v. United Parcel Service Flexible Benefits PlanDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 2016
- Sobh v. Phoenix Graphix IncorporatedDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2022