Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP v. Neal Lewis, No. 21-2266 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP (Wagstaff) filed a declaratory-judgment action against the Defendant-Attorney, seeking a declaration that Wagstaff owed nothing to Defendant for any work on a wrongful death lawsuit or, in the alternative, a determination of the amount it owed to Defendant.
Defendant filed counterclaims against Wagstaff, including a counterclaim under the theory of quantum meruit. The district court entered judgment in Wagstaff’s favor. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in (1) denying his motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (2) denying his motion for leave to dismiss counterclaims without prejudice and motions for leave to file his second amended answer (3) denying his motion to dismiss the declaratory-judgment action without prejudice under the abstention doctrine and motion to reconsider the denial of that dismissal motion and (4) denying, in part, his motion to alter or amend the judgment or, in the alternative, relief from judgment.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling in Plaintiff’s favor. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to alter or amend the judgment or, in the alternative, relief from judgment. The court held that the district court reasonably interpreted Defendant’s response to Wagstaff’s third summary judgment motion as an abandonment of his quantum meruit claim. In addition, Defendant had not sustained his burden of proving that Wagstaff has engaged in misconduct that prevented him from fully and fairly presenting his case.
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case. In action seeking a declaratory judgment regarding plaintiff's responsibility to share attorney's fees with defendant for work done in a wrongful death action, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as the record supported the district court's finding that there was diversity of citizenship; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to dismiss his counterclaims without prejudice; nor did the court abuse its discretion by denying his motion for permission to file a second amended answer; on this record, the district court properly applied the appropriate factors in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action on the basis of the abstention doctrine; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to alter or amend the judgment or, in the alternative to grant relief from judgment.
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.