Engst v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

W.D. Washington

Engst v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

DecidedFebruary 9, 2022

Docket2:19-cv-02074

StatusUnknown

This text of Engst v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company (Engst v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Engst v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 ROBERT COOPER ENGST; and ANNA SUSAN ENGST, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 C19-2074 TSZ 10 v. MINUTE ORDER 11 RUIZ & SMART PLLC; and LETHER LAW GROUP, 12 Respondents. 13

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 14 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 15 (1) The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Determine Entitlement to and Reasonableness of Attorneys’ Fees and Liens, docket no. 59, is GRANTED. The Court has supplemental 16 and ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate fee issues relating to the underlying action. See Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Ferrante, 364 F.3d 1037, 1039–42 (9th Cir. 2004); 28 17 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court is in the best position to decide the attorney lien and fee issues in this case. See Venegas v. Skaggs, 867 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Equity, along 18 with judicial economy, dictate that this court employ its ancillary jurisdiction to hear this motion.”). Any necessary disgorgement of fees would also fall within the Court’s 19 inherent authority to adjudicate these disputes. 20 (2) The parties are DIRECTED to confer and file a joint status report by February 23, 2022 suggesting the scope and nature of discovery and the process for the 21 Court to hear the issues of (i) whether the Ruiz lien is valid, (ii) if Ruiz is entitled to any fees, what amount of fees is reasonable, (iii) the reasonable amount of fees that are due to 22 Lether, and (iv) is disgorgement of fees warranted due to any breaches of Ruiz’s and/or 1 Lether’s ethical and fiduciary duties. The Court anticipates that there will be limited discovery and that the matter can be resolved on the briefs or with a short hearing within 2 60 days. 3 (3) The Clerk is directed to REOPEN this case for the purposes of resolving the issues relating to attorney fees and liens. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this 4 Minute Order to counsel of record for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Dated this 9th day of February, 2022. 5 6 Ravi Subramanian Clerk 7 s/Gail Glass 8 Deputy Clerk 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 ROBERT COOPER ENGST; and ANNA SUSAN ENGST, 8 Plaintiffs, 9 C19-2074 TSZ 10 v. MINUTE ORDER 11 RUIZ & SMART PLLC; and LETHER LAW GROUP, 12 Respondents. 13

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 14 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 15 (1) The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Determine Entitlement to and Reasonableness of Attorneys’ Fees and Liens, docket no. 59, is GRANTED. The Court has supplemental 16 and ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate fee issues relating to the underlying action. See Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Ferrante, 364 F.3d 1037, 1039–42 (9th Cir. 2004); 28 17 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court is in the best position to decide the attorney lien and fee issues in this case. See Venegas v. Skaggs, 867 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Equity, along 18 with judicial economy, dictate that this court employ its ancillary jurisdiction to hear this motion.”). Any necessary disgorgement of fees would also fall within the Court’s 19 inherent authority to adjudicate these disputes. 20 (2) The parties are DIRECTED to confer and file a joint status report by February 23, 2022 suggesting the scope and nature of discovery and the process for the 21 Court to hear the issues of (i) whether the Ruiz lien is valid, (ii) if Ruiz is entitled to any fees, what amount of fees is reasonable, (iii) the reasonable amount of fees that are due to 22 Lether, and (iv) is disgorgement of fees warranted due to any breaches of Ruiz’s and/or 1 Lether’s ethical and fiduciary duties. The Court anticipates that there will be limited discovery and that the matter can be resolved on the briefs or with a short hearing within 2 60 days. 3 (3) The Clerk is directed to REOPEN this case for the purposes of resolving the issues relating to attorney fees and liens. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this 4 Minute Order to counsel of record for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Dated this 9th day of February, 2022. 5 6 Ravi Subramanian Clerk 7 s/Gail Glass 8 Deputy Clerk 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Engst v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/engst-v-usaa-casualty-insurance-company-wawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack