Estate of Maurice Monk v. County

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 ESTATE OF MAURICE MONK, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04037-TSH

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. STRIKE NOTICE OF LIEN

10 CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL Re: Dkt. No. 175 GROUP, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 On May 22, 2025, Pointer & Buelna, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff Nia’ Amore Monk, filed a 14 Notice of Lien, stating they “have a claim of lien for legal costs in the amount of $99,874 against 15 any settlement or judgment proceeds to be paid to Plaintiff KYSE MONK.” ECF No. 175. Kyse 16 Monk now moves for an order striking or expunging the notice, arguing it “constitutes an 17 improper attempt to impose unilaterally incurred expenses onto a non-client without legal 18 justification” and “jeopardizes the integrity of [his] recovery and offends fundamental principles 19 of fairness.” ECF No. 189. Pointer & Buelna filed an opposition (ECF No. 190) and Kyse Monk 20 filed a reply (ECF No. 191). The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral 21 argument and VACATES the July 31, 2025 hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 22 While the federal rules don’t explicitly permit a court to strike non-pleadings, “District 23 courts possess the inherent power to control their dockets, to manage their own affairs, and to 24 determine what appears in the court’s records.” Van v. Black Angus Steakhouses, LLC, 2018 WL 25 2763330, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2018) (citing Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 26 402, 404-05 (9th Cir. 2010)). “‘[S]triking material under the Court’s inherent power is wholly 27 discretionary.’” Bolooki v. Honda Motor Co. (In re Honda Idle Stop Litig.), 2024 WL 4404067, at 1 *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2016)). 2 From the record, it appears Pointer & Buelna and Kyse Monk’s counsel, the Law Office of 3 Jerome A Clay, entered into or attempted to enter into a cost sharing agreement for litigation costs. 4 See Buena Decl., Ex. 1, ECF No. 190-1 (11/27/23 email exchange between Adante Pointer and 5 Jerome Clay in which Mr. Pointer states “I wanted to confirm that our offices agree to split expert 6 fees and joint costs 50/50,” and Mr. Clay responds “Yes sir we will split everything 50/50 and 7 happy holidays”); Reply at 2 (“The Notice of Lien . . . rests solely on an unexecuted and disputed 8 inter-attorney cost-sharing understanding”). However, even if the parties did enter into a valid 9 agreement (and the Court makes no such finding here), Pointer & Buelna admits it would need to 10 bring a separate action in state court for breach of contract, as any such dispute is not properly 11 before this Court. See Opp’n at 5-7. The Court agrees. See Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp., 99 12 Cal. App. 4th 1168, 1173 (2002) (‘After the client obtains a judgment, the attorney must bring a 5 13 separate, independent action against the client to establish the existence of the lien, to determine 14 the amount of the lien, and to enforce it.... An order within the underlying action purporting to 15 affect an attorney’s lien is void.”’) (collecting cases); Clinton v. Adams, 2014 WL 6896021, at *4 16 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2014) (“[A]n attorney claiming an attorney’s lien on the judgment is not a 3 17 party.... Asa result, the trial court in the underlying action ‘acts in excess of its jurisdiction S 18 when it purports to determine’ the existence or validity of the alleged attorney’s lien.”) (citing 19 Carroll, 99 Cal. App. 4th at 1173-74, and Brown vy. Superior Ct., 116 Cal. App. 4th 320, 328-31 20 (2004)). Therefore, the Court finds it is without jurisdiction to consider the matter and, as the lien 21 issue has no effect in this case, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to strike the notice. See 22 In re Twitter Inc. Sec. Litig., 2020 WL 485547, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2020) (declining to strike 23 exhibits where doing so would not “clarify the docket”). Kyse Monk’s motion is therefore 24 DENIED. 26 Dated: July 16, 2025 27 AS \.. I. THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge