Smith v. Nicholas & Co. Foodservice LLC ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 JOE SMITH, Case No. 2:18-cv-00256-KJD-CWH 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 NICHOLAS & CO. FOODSERVICE, LLC, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Counsel Hatfield & Associates’ Motion to 14 Reduce Lien to Judgment (#31) and Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (#30). Though the time for 15 doing so has passed, no responses in opposition have been filed. Having read and considered 16 Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw, and good cause being found, it is granted. 17 District courts have ancillary jurisdiction over fee disputes generated by an attorney's 18 withdrawal. See, e.g., Curry v. Del Priore, 941 F.2d 730, 731 (9th Cir. 1991). “Determining the 19 legal fees a party to a lawsuit properly before the court owes its attorney, with respect to the 20 work done in the suit being litigated, easily fits the concept of ancillary jurisdiction.” Federal 21 Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Ferrante, 364 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Jenkins v. 22 Weinshienk, 670 F.2d 915, 919 (10th Cir. 1982)). 23 The state's law in which a federal court sits governs resolution of an attorney lien. Itar- 24 Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 140 F.3d 442, 448 (2d Cir. 1998) (federal 25 courts resolve attorney liens by applying state law). Nevada statute allows for a retaining lien by 26 an attorney for the fees owed to that attorney by his client. See N.R.S. 18.015(4)(b). That 27 statutory scheme was amended in 2013 to make clear that a retaining lien is not passive in nature, 28 and that judgment may be sought from the Court in “any civil action.” N.R.S. 18.015(1)(b); see 1 also Fredianelli v. Price, 402 P.3d 1254, 1256 (Nev. 2017). Such relief may be sought by the 2 filing of a motion for adjudication and enforcement of the lien. See N.R.S. 18.015(6). In 3 Fredianelli, the Nevada Supreme Court clarified that enforcement of an attorney’s statutory 4 retaining lien includes reducing the lien to a monetary judgment. 402 P.3d at 1256. Here, 5 Hatfield has sufficiently demonstrated the validity and reasonableness of his lien. Accordingly, 6 the Court will order judgment be entered in the amount of $1,104.55. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw 8 (#30) is GRANTED; 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hatfield & Associates’ Motion to Reduce Lien to 10 Judgment (#31) is GRANTED; 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter JUDGMENT for Hatfield 12 & Associates, Ltd., and attorney Trevor J. Hatfield, Esq. and against Plaintiff Joe Smith in the 13 amount of $1,104.55. 14 DATED this 19TH day of December 2019. 15 16 17 _____________________________ 18 Kent J. Dawson 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28