Woodson v. City of Richmond, Virginia et al, No. 3:2013cv00134 - Document 828 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 05/13/2015. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Woodson v. City of Richmond, Virginia et al Doc. 828 I i IN THE UNITED l E m MAY I 3 2015 STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA « • -u j ^ • • I CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT • Richmond Division ' — RICHMOND, VA i STEFAN WOODSON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:13cvl34 CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is ("Woodson") Motion (Docket No. 816). be before to the Determine Court Value on of Stefan GMA's For the reasons that follow, Woodson's Claim of Lien this motion will denied. BACKGROUND On July 9, 2012, Woodson suffered severe injuries while confined as an inmate in the Richmond City Jail. Thereafter, filed Shortly before this trial, look the at action naming parties the numerous reached evolution of a defendants. compromise the case settlement. will help A to set he brief the background for this motion. The and action was Benjamin M. filed on March Andrews who Geoff McDonald & Associates, were P.C. 1, 2013 by Seth R. associates ("GMA"). in the Carroll law firm, Those lawyers filed Dockets.Justia.com an Amended Complaint on March 13, 2013. Much activity occurred in the case over the ensuing year and, during that time, Woodson was represented by Carroll and other lawyers in GMA. 14, 2014, Carroll, Andrews, GMA left GMA en masse. Andrews as GMA Amended Complaint, and five The last lawyers was Docket previously filed motion. No. other lawyers employed by pleading filed on 88), for Consent Woodson, Group. Order but listing Carroll January after the 16, 2014 Court was filed identified and his On January 28, listed law firm Carroll as as Jonathen E. 2014, a a counsel Commonwealth Andrews was also listed as counsel for Woodson, 2014, (Second granted law firm was identified as The Halperin Law Center. 30, and From then on, neither GMA nor any of its lawyers were involved in the case. routine On January Law but his On January Halperin noted an appearance on behalf of Woodson. Woodson was at GMA, 2012, by a referred to Carroll, lawyer not affiliated who was with GMA. an On associate October 1, Woodson executed a Personal Injury Retainer Agreement with GMA and agreed to pay the firm a forty percent fee, then plus Docket No. all costs 817-1. incurred On in October Compensation Agreement with GMA, the 23, course 2012, (40%) contingency of Carroll the action. executed wherein Carroll agreed that, a if "any client elects to have his/her contingency fee case go with [Carroll]" after Carroll quit working at GMA, "GMA [would] be entitled to 75% of the amount of the contingency fee specified in the contingency fee agreement" between the client and GMA for "settlement, period verdict, immediately or [other recovery] following the within a six Cessation month or Date, (6) if a continuance of the trial of any such case occurs for any reason within the First Recovery Period."1 Id. at 3. Carroll was thereafter assigned primary responsibility for the Woodson case. The records now shows that, after the six attorneys left GMA on January 14, 2014, Carroll started his own firm with other former GMA employees (Commonwealth Law Group) and Andrews joined The Halperin Law Center. Id. executed a "Choice Letter", Carroll to On January 21, Woodson electing to have his case moved with Commonwealth Law Group. Docket No. 817-3. then executed a retainer agreement with Carroll. at 9. 2014, On January 30, 2014, Woodson Docket No. 825 Woodson "executed a fee agreement with [The Halperin Law Center] because of Woodson's belief that Halperin was resources." Halperin more Id. Legal established with more experience and The retainer agreement between Woodson and The Center agreed on a thirty-nine percent (39%) contingency fee.2 1 Andrews, who was also employed at GMA executed agreement on October 29, 2012. Docket No. 820-1. 2 Halperin and conference call clause wherein Carroll that the the have represented retainer attorneys fully 3 to agreement the also the Court same on a contained a indemnified Woodson against On February attorneys' fees 6, to Richmond against Carroll, Andrews, 2014, GMA sent David Corrigan, Woodson, and who, who by Halperin. a Notice of Lien represented the then, Docket was No. letter requested that "100% of any and all for City of represented 817-5. by That attorney's fees and costs advanced be sent directly to Geoff McDonald and Associates so that the same may be apportioned according to an employment contract between Carrol)." this Id. firm Carroll and the and Andrews departing attorney were copies sent (Seth of that letter. On February 13, 2015, the parties settled Woodson's federal civil rights action. On February 19, 2015, Geoffrey McDonald's counsel sent to all counsel in Woodson's case a letter providing notice of a lien for attorney's fees, pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-3932. Docket No. 817-6. The letter stated that, pursuant to a retainer agreement executed by Woodson and GMA and a Compensation Agreement between Carroll and GMA, Attorney's Lien of GMA would be seventy-five percent the entire advanced." forty percent Docket No. On April 6, 2015, contingent fee, together "[t]he (75%) with of costs 817-6 at 3. GMA filed a complaint against Woodson's lawyers and their firms in the Circuit Court of Henrico County. the chance that the contingency fee amount is found to be the forty percent (40%) fee called for in Woodson's contract with GMA. Docket No. against 820-4. those interference common The lawyers, with State complaint including contract, law conspiracy, breach makes of statutory and unjust several contract, business enrichment. claims tortious conspiracy, Id. The State complaint asks for a declaratory judgment on the entitlement to legal fees paid federal civil under the rights case. settlement Id. On April 15, seeking a determination lien that was filed under Va. in Woodson's Woodson is not a defendant in the State case against the lawyers. filed this motion agreement Code Ann. of 2015, Woodson the value of the § 54.1-3932. DISCUSSION Both parties have addressed the merits of the motion in their filings, but GMA has asserted that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. controversy, Of course, if there is no case or there is no subject matter jurisdiction. v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). whether the Court has subject matter Arbaugh Thus, the question of jurisdiction must be addressed first. I. Standing The first argument that GMA makes against the existence of subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Woodson's motion is that Woodson does not have standing to assert the claim made in it. GMA's position is that Woodson "has no interest in the value of GMA's separate claimed lien employment [because] contract with GMA's claim arises Woodson's attorneys from a through which . . . GMA is entitled to a portion of the fee received by Woodson's attorneys." it "claims Woodson Thus, no (or to Woodson Docket No. entitlement be has to 820 the interest 9. According to GMA, settlement paid to Woodson), no at only to whatsoever in funds paid his lawyer's the fee to fee. dispute." Id. Woodson responds that he does, in fact, have an interest in the dispute standing between his lawyers and GMA, to challenge settlement."3 because, lien Docket any No. assertion 825 at 7. stating that he "has of a That lien is against said to be his so, "[i]f GMA were seeking enforcement of an attorney's fee against Woodson or his settlement, Woodson would standing to seek a determination of the value of the lien." Further, Woodson arrangements may settlement, other settlement (along posits or may that, not counsel, with exist and the "[w]hatever among Woodson, payers and the Id. contractual payers Woodson other have of the and his counsel) are responsible to GMA for any valid and properly noticed attorney's fee lien." Id. (citing Va. Code Ann. §54.1-3932.) That 3 Although Woodson addresses the issue of jurisdiction in his original memorandum, he does so only in the context of whether this Court should extend supplemental jurisdiction to the issue. He does not discuss whether he has standing. Docket No. 817. contention is difficult the notion that, to follow, but it seems to depend upon simply because the lawyer's fees are to be paid out of the settlement proceeds, Woodson necessarily has standing without regard to whether the settlement payout that he receives is adversely impacted. The United States Constitution's "case-or-controversy" requirement limits the jurisdiction of the federal court system. U.S. Const. imposed Art limits III on §2. To fall jurisdiction, a within the plaintiff constitutionally suing in federal court must have standing to pursue his or her claim. Over the years, the law of standing has been developed in such a way that it now consists of three elements. plaintiff must have suffered an 'injury in fact' of a legally protected particularized and (b) hypothetical. interest which is actual or imminent, "First, the - an invasion (a) concrete and not conjectural or Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of - the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendants and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, merely 'speculative', favorable decision." 555, 560-61 (1992) invoking federal that it must the Lujan v. (internal be injury 'likely', will Defenders quotations jurisdiction bears of be as opposed redressed Wildlife, omitted). 504 The by to a U.S. party the burden of proving that these three Seldin, requirements 42 U.S. Woodson 490, 518 alleges determination of the are satisfied. Id. at 560; Warth v. (1975). that value he of has GMA's an lien. interest Docket No. in the 825 at 6. There are two types of interests that Woodson appears to claim: financial and conceptual. If bring Woodson this physical has motion harms, this 587, of it course, not the he has case 'injury in of However, appear standing to economic or question fact' Freedom from Religion (2007). does interest, "[i]n the Hein v. 642 record, financial because, straightforward." 511 U.S. a is Found., Inc., based on the information in that Woodson has a financial interest in the outcome of the determination of the fee dispute that his motion asks the Court to adjudicate. To begin, entitlement to GMA the has represented settlement funds that it to Woodson paid paid to Woodson), only to his lawyer's fees." 9. On that point, exact same GMA contends amount of money the (or to no be Docket No. 820 at that Woodson will under "claims receive settlement the agreement without regard to the resolution of the dispute between GMA, its former associates, otherwise. directly, Nor or and could he through settlement agreement, Halperin. because the Woodson Woodson annuity all of the funds 8 trust has does not received provided say either in the to which he is entitled under the settlement. Thirty-nine settlement amount was withheld and, escrow. That represents the percent (39%) the Court is contingent fee told, called of the is now in for by the retainer agreement between Woodson, Halperin and Carroll.4 under that retainer agreement, the lawyers have And, agreed to indemnify Woodson against the difference between the thirty-nine percent (39%) fee called for by that percent (40%) fee called for by the agreement agreement and the forty between Woodson and GMA.5 Thus, on this record Woodson has no financial stake in the resolution of the fee dispute between the lawyers. Therefore, he will sustain no injury in fact no matter how that dispute is resolved. It appears from the briefing that Woodson also is arguing that he will suffer a more ideological/emotional type of injury because of this lien. Specifically, he seems to contend that he could be injured by the fact that the attorney's fees from his settlement would not be paid, in their entirety, to the lawyer that he selected to represent him. Unfortunately, this notion. And, the parties indeed, have not it only appears extensively briefed in a roundabout way 4 Halperin and Carroll represented that fact to the Court in a telephone conference on April 15, 2015. dispute the representation. 5 Id. Woodson does not in the one paragraph of standing. However, emotional and it distress violation" Environmental (E.D. Va. 93, 98 deeply is confer standing. v. D.C.) felt, cannot to American U.S. E.P.A., suffice the for that 2013 WL a Institute v. Babitt, has at *4 46 F.3d no matter how injury-in-fact Court legal 428452, 'harm,' with "general Tradition of U.S. Supreme deals establish ("[G]eneral emotional Further, that well-established (citing Humane Soc. (Dist. purposes.")). is reply brief insufficient Law Center 2013) Woodson's for held standing that "the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which sufficient to Christian Church Woodson's disagrees ... is not confer standing under Article III." College and one State, v. Americans Inc., attempt to 454 United U..S. 464, demonstrate dissatisfaction with an outcome for the 485 standing that would an injury Valley Forge Separation (1982). based Thus, on favor GMA is of his without legal merit. In sum, component Woodson of the has standing failed test. to meet For that the "injury-in-fact" reason, his motion must be denied. II. Supplemental Jurisdiction Assuming nonetheless that would Woodson decline had established to exercise 10 standing, supplemental the Court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because there is no nexus between Woodson's federal civil rights claim that affords subject matter jurisdiction lawyers which Taylor v. Chem. in this is Kelsey, Corp., 503 a case and matter the fee of State dispute contract between and tort 666 F.2d 53 (4th Cir. 1981); Adams v. F. Supp. 253, 255 (E.D. Va. 1980). the law. Allied For that additional reason, Woodson's motion must be denied. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Determine Value of GMA's Claim of Lien (Docket No. 816) will be denied. It is so ORDERED. Robert E. /s/ Payne £1/ Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Date: Virginia May _j3_, 2015 11
]]>
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.
