American Airlines Flow-Thru Pilots Coalition v. Allied Pilots Association

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 30, 2022
• Docket: 3:15-cv-03125
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 AMERICAN AIRLINES FLOW-THRU 10 PILOTS COALITION, et al., Case Nos. 15-cv-03125-RS 17-cv-01160-RS 11 Plaintiffs, 18-cv-03682-RS

12 v. ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS REQUESTING ISSUANCE OF 13 ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION, et ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 Former plaintiffs’ counsel in these three related actions filed a notice of lien in each case, 17 claiming an entitlement to be paid the reasonable value of their services, and to be reimbursed for 18 costs advanced, from any settlement or judgment in plaintiffs’ favor. Plaintiffs request orders issue 19 requiring former counsel to show cause why the lien notices should not be stricken.1 20 Where, as here, a fee agreement contemplates the attorney is to look to the judgment for 21 payment for legal services rendered, California law provides that a lien arises, whether or not a 22 notice of lien is filed. See Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp., 99 Cal. App. 4th 1168, 1172 (2002) 23 (“an attorney’s lien is a ‘secret’ lien; it is created and the attorney’s security interest is protected 24 even without a notice of lien.”). Merely striking the notices of the claimed liens would therefore 25 have no effect on the underlying security interests. 26 1 Although presenting the matter by a stipulation or a motion to shorten time under Rule 6 rather 27 than as a Rule 7-11 administrative motion might have been more procedurally correct, former 1 Plaintiffs appear, however, to be seeking a determination that the lien claims are invalid 2 and that their former attorneys are entitled to no fees, or at that they are at most entitled to recover 3 || the reasonable value of their services, and not the one-third of any recovery specified in the 4 retainer agreement.” There is no jurisdiction in this action, however, to adjudicate the substantive 5 validity of former counsel’s claimed liens. 6 The trial court does have fundamental jurisdiction over the subject 7 matter and over the parties. Nevertheless, because the attorney is not a party to the underlying action and has no right to intervene, the g trial court acts in excess of its jurisdiction when it purports to determine whether the attorney is entitled to foreclose a lien on the 9 judgment. Nor can the court entertain a motion to terminate the lien. After the client obtains a judgment, the attorney must bring a 10 separate, independent action against the client to establish the ll existence of the lien, to determine the amount of the lien, and to enforce it. An order within the underlying action purporting to affect 12 an attorney’s lien 1s void.

13 || Carroll, 99 Cal. App. 4th at 1173.7

v 14 Accordingly, the requests for orders to show cause are denied.

16 || ITISSO ORDERED.

= 17

Zz 18 Dated: August 30, 2022 19 0 RICHARD SEEBORG Chief United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 || ? As noted, each lien notice expressly only asserts a “reasonable value” claim, plus entitlement to 95 reimbursement for advanced costs. %6 3 Although Carroll is a state court decision and the present cases were brought under federal question jurisdiction, the lien issues sound in state law and there is no reason that the result should 97 || be different in federal court. 28 CASE No. 17-cv-01160-RS