Opinion
Index No. 650984/2018
10-09-2020
Bryan BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. Leslie HALL and Iced Media Ltd., Defendants.
Law Offices of Carine M. Williams, PLLC, New York, NY (Carine M. Williams of counsel), for plaintiff. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, New York, NY (Courtney Devon Taylor of counsel), for defendants.
Law Offices of Carine M. Williams, PLLC, New York, NY (Carine M. Williams of counsel), for plaintiff.
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, New York, NY (Courtney Devon Taylor of counsel), for defendants.
Gerald Lebovits, J.
The only remaining claim in this action is for legal fees, which plaintiff is pursuing from defendants on contract, account-stated, and unjust-enrichment theories. On August 23, 2017, plaintiff invoiced defendant Iced Media Ltd. for $24,366.40 in fees for prior services rendered; the invoice stated that the fees were due upon receipt of the invoice. (See NYSCEF No. 40.) On October 20, 2017, Iced Media paid $2,000 on the outstanding invoice. (See NYSCEF No. 2 at ¶ 28.)
In 2018, plaintiff sued defendants, asserting several causes of action, including claims for unpaid legal fees. The complaint alleged that the true value of the legal services he had provided defendants was $30,458; and that the $24,366.40 figure on the invoice reflected a 20% discount conditioned on timely payment of the sum due (which undisputedly did not occur). (See NYSCEF No. 2 at ¶¶ 25-28.)
The face of the invoice reflects application of a 20% fee discount; the invoice does not itself discuss the basis (or potential preconditions) for the discount. (See NYSCEF No. 40.)
On July 15, 2019, Iced Media paid a further $22,366.40 toward the balance owed for legal services. Defendants do not contest their obligation to pay interest on unpaid legal fees. But they do dispute plaintiff's contention that Iced Media owes $30,458 in fees (plus interest), rather than $24,366.40 in fees (plus interest). The remaining amount in controversy in this action, therefore, is $6,091.60 (plus interest on that sum running from August 2017 until payment or entry of judgment).
By the court's calculation, the current accrued interest on the disputed fees is approximately $1,730.
Defendants, emphasizing that the remaining amount in controversy (exclusive of interest) is under the $10,000 ceiling of the New York City Civil Court Small Claims Part, now move under CPLR 325 to transfer the action to Civil Court to permit adjudication of the fee claim in the Small Claims Part. Alternatively, defendants move under CPLR 7503 to compel arbitration of the dispute under the courts' Part 137 fee-dispute-arbitration program. Plaintiff opposes transfer or arbitration, and cross-moves to compel defendants to respond to discovery demands he served in May 2020.
DISCUSSION
Defendants' motion to transfer or to compel arbitration is denied. This court has concurrent jurisdiction with the New York City Civil Court with respect to claims for money under $25,000 (exclusive of interest and costs); and concurrent jurisdiction with the Small Claims Part of Civil Court with respect to claims for money under $10,000 (exclusive of interest and costs). (See NY Const., art. 6, §§ 7, 15 ; Judiciary Law § 140-b ; New York City Civil Court Act §§ 202, 207, 1801.) This court thus continues to have jurisdiction over this case; but also has discretion, under CPLR 325 (d), whether to transfer the case to the Small Claims Part. This court declines, in its discretion, to transfer the action at this late stage.
Defendants could have moved to transfer this case in July 2019, when Iced Media's payment to plaintiff reduced the amount in controversy below the Small Claims Part's ceiling. Instead, they counterclaimed in this court for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and, after this court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaim, waited a further five months to seek transfer. Given that this action has already been pending for two-and-a-half years, and that defendants substantial delayed in seeking transfer, this court declines to consider the unusual step of transferring this action to the Small Claims Part.
With respect to the motion to compel arbitration, defendants could have sought arbitration once this court granted plaintiff's non-fee-related claims—in February 2019. Instead, defendants did not merely actively litigate the case, but chose to assert a new counterclaim; and they have sought to compel arbitration only after this court dismissed the counterclaim. Defendants' litigation conduct evinces an affirmative choice for the present forum over arbitration. They have waived any right they might have had to compel arbitration.
Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery is granted only in limited part. The action as it now stands is a dispute only about whether defendants incurred an additional $6,091.60 in legal fees beyond what they concede they owed plaintiff. Yet, as defendants point out, plaintiff seeks wide-ranging discovery that is frequently (i) excessively burdensome relative to the amount in controversy; (ii) irrelevant to the question whether defendants owe the additional $6,091.60 under the terms of their retention of plaintiff, or (iii) both.
This court therefore concludes as follows:
Document Requests
Request No. 1 : Defendants shall within 45 days of entry of this order respond in full to this request.
Request No. 2 : Plaintiff has not articulated how this request seeks information that would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the remaining claim in this action; and this court does not perceive the relevance of the request to that claim. Defendants need not respond to this request.
Request Nos. 3 and 4 : This court agrees with plaintiff that these requests seek potentially relevant information. But the court also concludes that a request for "all Documents that relate to any Communication with any Person" is vague and overbroad. The court concludes that defendants should be required within 45 days produce all documents that (i) were prepared (or communications sent) by defendant Hall or any officer or director of defendant Iced Media; (ii) were prepared or sent between August 1, 2016, and July 15, 2019, inclusive; and (iii) discuss or reflect the decision by defendants to pay, or not pay, the amounts claimed by plaintiff in legal fees.
Request Nos. 5, 7, 11 : These requests are substantially overbroad in relation to the remaining claim in this action. Defendants need not respond.
Request No. 6 : This request is not relevant to the remaining claim in this action. Defendants need not respond.
Request Nos. 8 and 9 : Defendants shall within 45 days respond in full to this request.
Request No. 10 : Defendants shall within 45 days respond to this request, but limited to documents that were (i) created or made (ii) between August 1, 2016, and July 15, 2019, inclusive.
Request No. 12 : Defendants shall within 45 days respond in full to this request.
Request Nos. 13 : This request is substantially overbroad and of questionable relevance to the remaining claim in this action. Defendants need not respond.
Request No. 14 : This request is not relevant to the remaining claim in this action. Defendants need not respond
Request No. 15 : Plaintiff has not articulated how this request seeks information that would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to the remaining claim in this action; and this court does not perceive the relevance of the request to that claim. Defendants need not respond to this request.
Request Nos. 16 and 17 : These requests are substantially overbroad in relation to the remaining claim in this action. Defendants need not respond.
Request No. 18 : The undifferentiated request for all documents supporting all affirmative defenses raised in the answer is excessively overbroad and burdensome. Defendants need not respond.
Requests 19 and 20 : These requests are premature at this stage of the action. Defendants need not respond.
Interrogatories
Defendants shall, within 45 days of entry of this order, respond in full to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, and 4. Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 5 do not appear relevant to the remaining claims and defenses in this action. Interrogatory No. 6 seeks, in effect, disclosure of legal theories that defendants may assert in defending plaintiff's claim for the remaining $6,091.60 in assertedly unpaid legal fees. That requested disclosure exceeds the scope of what defendants are obligated to provide in interrogatory responses. Defendants need not respond to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, and 6.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the branch of defendants' motion under CPLR 325 seeking transfer of this action to Civil Court is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the branch of defendants' motion under CPLR 7503 seeking to compel arbitration is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a telephonic conference with the court on Wednesday, December 2, 2020.