Ziegenfuss Drilling, Inc. v. Frontier-Kemper Constructors, Inc., No. 2:2007cv00342 - Document 71 (S.D.W. Va. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying Daniels Law Firm, P.L.L.C.'s 66 PETITION to Enforce Charging Lien; and denying as moot its 70 MOTION to Expedite Consideration of its Petition to Enforce Charging Lien. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 10/30/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ZIEGENFUSS DRILLING, INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-cv-00342 FRONTIER-KEMPER CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Pending before the court is the Petition by Daniels Law Firm, P.L.L.C., to Enforce Charging Lien [Docket 66] and Motion by Daniels Law Firm, P.L.L.C. to Expedite Consideration of its Petition to Enforce Charging Lien [Docket 70]. The court DENIES the petition and the motion. Daniels Law Firm, P.L.L.C. ( Daniels ), filed its Petition to Enforce Charging Lien on October 12, 2009, almost a month after this court had dismissed the case with prejudice, with the parties to bear their own fees and costs [Docket 65]. At least one other circuit has held that a district court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate attorney liens after a case has been dismissed with prejudice. See Hill v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 405 F.3d 572, 576 (7th Cir. 2005) ( [A] case that is dismissed with prejudice is unconditional; therefore, it s over and federal jurisdiction is terminated. ). Even assuming this court has retained supplemental jurisdiction over the fee dispute, I decline to exercise such jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3) ( The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ); see also Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995) ( There are no situations wherein a federal court must retain jurisdiction over a state law claim, which would not by itself support jurisdiction. ). The amount in controversy here is $40,000.078.89; therefore, Daniels s state law claim would not independently support federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). Here, the fee dispute did not arise as a matter of necessity from anything which occurred in the underlying litigation, nor [does this] court have control over the fee in the sense that the court was required to establish and distribute a fee. Taylor v. Kelsey, 666 F.2d 53, 54 (4th Cir. 1981) (affirming dismissal of fee dispute). Daniels s Petition [Docket 66] is thus DENIED, and its Motion [Docket 70] is DENIED as moot. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: -2- October 30, 2009
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
