In re Homer Lee Knight, 207 F.3d 1115 (9^th Cir. 2000)-This case concerned whether a district court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction precluded it from awarding costs and attorneys' fees against a plaintiff alleging a cause of action under ERISA.  This court concluded that lack of subject matter jurisdiction did preclude the court from awarding fees and costs under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1).

The Knights owned a concrete company that defaulted in its obligation under a master labor agreement to make fringe benefit contributions to specified ERISA plans.  When the administrator of the plans sued and obtained a judgment against H.K. Concrete for its delinquent contributions, the Knights filed for bankruptcy.  The administrator of the plans, Carpenters Southern California Administrative Corporation ("CSCAC"), sued Interlog, an "alter ego" of the Knights.  The district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the proceeding against Interlog was not "related to" the Knights' bankruptcy and therefore did not fall under the court's bankruptcy jurisdiction.  Yet, the district court awarded Interlog $ 1,907.65 in costs and $ 26,752.25 in attorneys' fees.  CSCAC appealed that award.

This court turned to its decision in Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287 (9^th Cir. 1995).  In Branson, it held that lack of subject matter jurisdiction precluded a district court from applying the fee-shifting provision of the substantive statute under which plaintiff sued.  The only exceptions to that rule were not applicable here—"fee awards authorized by statutes and rules that are exclusively nonsubstantive - i.e., that give parties no rights outside of litigation."  Other circuits, including the Fifth and the Eleventh, agreed with Branson.