
    Thomas E. PEREZ, Secretary, Department of Labor, Plaintiff v. Herbert BRUISTER Defendant. Vincent Sealy, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Herbert C. Bruister; Bruister Family L.L.C., Defendants-Appellants
    No. 15-60765
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 06/08/2016
    Gary Douglas Greenwald, Keller Rohr-back, L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, Thomas David Copley, Keller Rohrback, L.L.P., Seattle, WA, Robert Nicholas Norris, Louis Han-ner Watson, Jr., Esq., Watson & Norris, P.L.L.C., Jackson, MS, Charles Peter Yez-bak, III, Esq., Yezbak Law Offices, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David R. Johanson, Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young, L.L.P., Napa, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This is the attorneys’ fees portion of a substantial ERISA liability case. See Perez v. Bruister, 823 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2016). The district court awarded fees and costs pursuant to ERISA § 502(g)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), to attorneys representing plaintiff Sealy. The fee award is joint and several against all “Defendants,” which, in the Sealy litigation, included BFLLC. On appeal, it is argued, for the first time, that BFLLC could not have an award of attorneys’ fees rendered against it, or alternatively, that the district court mistakenly included BFLLC because plaintiffs’ fee motion did not seek such an award. It is further argued that the private party attorneys should not be compensated because they added no value to litigation carried out by the Department of Labor.

We have reviewed .these contentions in light of the briefs, pertinent portions of the record, and the oral arguments. The arguments concerning BFLLC are waived and unreviewable by this court. See In re Lothian Oil Inc., 650 F.3d 539, 542 (5th Cir. 2011); see also Perez v. Bruister, 823 F.3d at 255 n.31; Wright v. Excel Paralubes, Inc., 807 F.3d 730, 736 (5th Cir. 2015). The further argument against awarding fees is contrary to the district court’s findings of fact, which are not clearly erroneous. The fee award judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     