Edwards v. PepsiCo, Inc., et al, No. 6:2004cv00096 - Document 533 (E.D. Okla. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West : Request for jury trial on the issue of the allocation of attorneys' fees, costs, and accrued interest is DENIED; Pretrial Order due by 12/7/2012; and Pretrial Conference on this dispute to be conducted on 12/14/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, Room 432, US Courthouse, 5th & Okmulgee, Muskogee, OK before Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West.(neh, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA DEC 0 5 Z01Z WILLIAM B. GUTHRIE Clerk, U.S. District Court ) SAMUEL D. EDWARDS, ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. PEPSICO, INC., a North Carolina corporation; PEPSI-COLA COMPANY, a North Carolina corporation; CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a THOMAS J. LIPTON COMPANY, a Virginia corporation; WM. W. MEYER & SONS, INC., an Illinois corporation; B.W. SINCLAIR, INC., a Texas corporation; LOCKWOOD GREENE ENGINEERS, INC., a foreign corporation; and JANE DOE, a foreign resident, Defendants. By Deputy Clerk Case No. CIV-04-096-KEW ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the limited issue of Capron & Edwards' entitlement to a jury trial on the determination of the appropriate attorney's fees due both it and Holden & Carr. This Court conducted a hearing with Steven Holden and Michelle Skeens present for Holden & Edwards for Capron & Edwards. Carr and Steve Capron and Michael The history of this case and the current more narrow dispute over the allocation and distribution of the funds currently held and attributable to the attorneys' fees incurred in the representation of Plaintiff in this case has been tortuously set forth in several of the prior orders entered by this Court throughout the protracted litigation of this case. Suffice it to state that the original principal amount held by Holden & Carr for attorneys' fees was $928,276.50 from which Capron & Edwards has received $628,780.84 and Holden & Carr has received $69, 025.85 in reimbursement for expenses. Thus, the principal amount of $230,469.81 plus accrued and accruing interest remains in dispute between the two law firms. The sole issue which this Court seeks to determine in this decision is whether Capron & Edwards is entitled to a jury trial on the issues of (1) compensation for the lost use of funds; (2) the allocation of the attorneys' fees held by Holden & Carr to the two law firms; and (3) the apportionment of accrued interest to the two firms. Capron & Edwards relies primarily upon the case of Simplot v. Chevron Pipeline Co., 563 F.3d 1102 (lOth Cir. 2009) for the proposition that it is entitled to a jury trial to determined the number of purposes, hours attributable to each the actual costs incurred, accrued interest. firm for compensation and the allocation of the This Court disagrees. In the Simplot case, the plaintiff sought to recover his attorney's fees and costs incurred in other litigation as an element of damage in a breach of contract action against the defendant. The Tenth Circuit recognized the novelty of the argument, noting The Supreme Court has not specifically addressed a case where previously incurred attorneys' fees are sought as the measure of compensatory damages in a breach of contract suit. Unlike cases in which attorneys' fees are allowable to the prevailing party, here Simplot's attorneys' fees and costs are themselves part of the 2 merits of their contract claim. Simplot does not seek the fees 'as an element of "costs" awarded to the prevailing party,'. which 'raises legal issues collateral to and separate from the decision on the merits." Rather, Simplot seeks the fees as the measure of damages resulting from Chevron's breach, 'as an element of damages under a contract.' Id. at 1115-16. original) . (Internal citations omitted) (Emphasis in The Tenth Circuit concluded that when fees are sought as an element of damages in the action, the defendant has a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on the amount of the attorneys' fees due as damages for the defendant's breach of it contract. Id. at 1117. At its heart, this action was brought by Plaintiff to recover against Defendants under a products liability theory. fees were not an element of damages for Plaintiff. Attorneys' The subsequent dispute between the law firms arose only because the lead attorney left Holden & Carr to create his own law firm after trial. The Tenth Circuit in its Order and Judgment of May 20, 2009 remanding this matter to this Court set the parameters for consideration of this dispute. In assessing this Court's and, therefore, its own jurisdiction to consider this dispute, the Tenth Circuit found "the dispute involves an attorney's lien, which weighs in favor of jurisdiction because the lien creates a direct connection to the underlying litigation." Cir. Edwards v. Doe, 2009 WL 1395468, 5 (lOth (Okla.)) (unpublished). The Tenth Circuit on this basis found it was appropriate for this Court to exercise its supplemental 3 jurisdiction. Id. at 6. So long as an action is characterized as one to enforce an attorney lien under Oklahoma law, the determination of the division of the funds is equitable in nature and may be decided by the court without a jury. App. 1994). Martin v. Buckman, 883 P.2d 185, 192 (Okla. Ct. Indeed, one of the filed requests which gave rise to the original dispute was one involving Holden & Carr's attempt to See, Holden & Carr's Application for enforce its attorneys' lien. Hearing on Enforcement of Attorney's (Docket Entry #360). Since the Lien dispute filed has at July 3, 2006 its core the enforcement or determination of the extent of an attorneys' lien, the determination of the amount to which each law firm is entitled is equitable in nature and may be determined without a jury. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Capron & Edwards' request for a jury trial on the issue of the allocation of the attorneys' fees, costs, and accrued interest is hereby DENIED. Any and all other remaining legal issues will be determined after the presentation of evidence at the hearing on the appropriate distribution of the proceeds. As this Court previously ordered, the parties to this dispute shall DECEMBER 7, submit 2012. an Also Agreed as Pretrial previously Order no directed, later a than Pretrial Conference on this dispute shall be conducted on DECEMBER 14, 2012 AT 10:00 A.M. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED this ~~day of December, 2012. ~ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5
]]>
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.
