Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-cv-00342.
October 30, 2009
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.