Plaintiff is a former NFL player who sought disability benefits for his injuries from the NFL Player Retirement Plan, a welfare benefit plan jointly administered by representatives of NFL players and team owners. The Plan awarded plaintiff some benefits based on his injuries, but concluded that he was ineligible for the highest tier of benefits. Cloud eventually sued under ERISA, claiming that the Plan unlawfully denied him the highest category of benefits, and failed to provide a “full and fair” review. The District Court ordered the Plan to pay the benefits sought and awarded roughly $1.2 million in attorney’s fees, as well as $600,000 in conditional fees. On appeal, however, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded to the District Court to enter judgment in the Plan’s favor.  Although the NFL Plan’s review board may well have denied Cloud a full and fair review, and Cloud was probably entitled to the highest level of benefits, the Court found that Cloud didn’t immediately appeal his benefits denial, even though he could have, and indeed should have. So even if the Plan did deny Cloud a full and fair review, no amount of additional review can change the fact that Cloud is ineligible for reclassification. See Cloud v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Ret. Plan, 95 F.4th 964 (5th Cir. 2024).

Coming back up to the Fifth Circuit on the attorneys’ fee issue, the Court explained that: Numerous federal laws authorize the award of attorney’s fees only to a “prevailing party.” While other federal laws, including ERISA, allow fee awards so long as the court deems it “appropriate” or within its “discretion.”  Even in the latter setting, however, some degree of success is still required before a fee award may be granted. The only question is the quantum of success obtained. Under prevailing party statutes, fees may be awarded only to “those who prevail in full,” while in provisions like the one at issue here, fees are also available to those who “prevail in part.”

Cloud insists that he achieved some degree of success on the merits because the district court found — and the court of appeals essentially agreed — that although the Plan ultimately prevailed on other grounds, it was nevertheless wrong to deprive Cloud of various benefits. But without any relief awarded to Cloud, mere factual findings, however favorable, are nothing more than a purely procedural victory. And that’s insufficient to justify a fee award.

 

Cloud v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Ret. Plan, No.25-10337, 2025 WL 3673303 (5th Cir. Dec. 18, 2025).