THOMAS v. NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
Filing
137
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Verified Petition for Determination and Enforcement of Attorney Lien (Docket Entry No. 129 ) is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 9/23/2011. (gxh)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
KARAMA THOMAS,
Civil Action No.: 08-2452(PGS)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
vs.
NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.
Defendant.
This matter has been opened to the Court by way of a Verified Petition for Determination and
Enforcement of Attorney Fee Lien. The Court views the application as a new complaint for legal fees
pursuant to the fee lien statute. N.J.S.A. 2A:13-5.
In this case, the Petitioner, Hyderally & Associates, P.C., is a law firm located in Montclair,
New Jersey. On March 15, 2011, Plaintiff substituted Angelo R. Bianchi, Esq. in place of Hyderally
& Associates as counsel in the § 1983 action. Hyderally & Associates seeks an attorney's lien in the
amount of $228,500 for services rendered prior to the substitution.
The Petition requests that the Court require Ms. Thomas to answer its Petition, to allow pretrial discovery, conduct a pre-trial hearing, and to order complete payment of fees. Although in §
1983 cases, the Court sometimes awards fees; the manner in which Hyderally & Associates requests
the Court to follow raises a broader issue of whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a legal fee
dispute between citizens of the same state – there is no diversity of citizenship.
Generally, federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. Each new case requires its own basis
for jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). In the Hyderally & Associates
legal fee petition, there is no mention of the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Award Act (42 U.S.C. §
1988(b)) which authorizes courts to award reasonable fees to the prevailing party. Hence, without
diversity and without alleging federal statutory jurisdiction, the Court does not find jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has admonished that “requests for legal fees should not result in second major
litigation.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). Here, Hyderally & Associate's petition
is second litigation. Hence, the Court dismisses the Petition due to a lack of jurisdiction. In the event
Ms. Thomas prevails and there is an award of legal fees, the Court will consider upon motion the
merits of Hyderally & Associates's legal fee in the usual course with other Plaintiff's attorneys.
IT IS on this 23rd day of September, 2011;
ORDERED that the Verified Petition for Determination and Enforcement of Attorney Fee
Lien (docket entry 129) is dismissed without prejudice.
s/Peter G. Sheridan
PETER G. SHERIDAN,U.S.D.J.
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
