Everett v. City of St. Petersburg
8:14-cv-02508
M.D. Fla.Apr 24, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Quade and Laquanda Everett sued the City of St. Petersburg and police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Quade’s shooting and severe injuries. Former counsel Wardell & Quezon, P.A. represented Plaintiffs then were discharged before settlement.
- The City made a $910,000 settlement offer during Former Counsel’s representation; Plaintiffs rejected it and later retained new counsel, who ultimately obtained a $2.68 million settlement.
- Former Counsel sought fees under their contingency agreement (40% after filing and before trial); because they were discharged prior to contingency, the contract’s contingency portion did not trigger and Former Counsel sought quantum meruit recovery and asserted a charging lien.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended a $200,000 quantum meruit award (based on a reduced lodestar of $177,836.50 and an upward adjustment); Plaintiffs objected seeking discovery and an evidentiary hearing and arguing lack of benefit and misconduct by Former Counsel.
- The district court conducted de novo review, adopted the R&R in full, denied Plaintiff’s requested additional discovery/hearing, found Former Counsel conferred value under the totality of the circumstances, and ordered a $200,000 quantum meruit fee and enforcement of the charging lien.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate procedure to resolve fee dispute | Plaintiffs: summary proceeding insufficient; request limited discovery and evidentiary hearing | Former Counsel: summary proceeding and affidavits suffice; additional litigation unnecessary | Court: summary proceeding was appropriate; no hearing/discovery required given record and precedent |
| Entitlement to fees after discharge | Plaintiffs: no valid enforceable 40% contract and counsel’s misconduct warrants forfeiture or large reduction | Former Counsel: even if contract noncompliant, quantum meruit permits recovery for reasonable value of services rendered | Court: Former Counsel entitled to quantum meruit under Florida law; $200,000 reasonable under totality of circumstances |
| Validity/weight of fee agreement | Plaintiffs: 40% contingency required court approval and was noncompliant; agreement thus invalid | Former Counsel: contract contained a clause to adjust if illegal/excessive; moreover contingency threshold likely not triggered | Court: contract’s invalidity does not preclude quantum meruit; billing records and other evidence adequate to value services |
| Forfeiture or reduction for client damages | Plaintiffs: discharge for cause and alleged misconduct (pressuring to settle, failing to withdraw) caused damages that should offset/forfeit fee | Former Counsel: Plaintiffs identified no concrete damages to offset award; counsel’s conduct did not warrant forfeiture | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show damages; assumed for-cause termination but no offset warranted; $200,000 stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Sohn v. Brockington, 371 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1979) (discharged contingency counsel may recover in quantum meruit)
- Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1982) (quantum meruit recovery limited by maximum fee in agreement when discharge without cause)
- Poletz v. Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., 652 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1995) (courts must consider totality of circumstances in quantum meruit attorney fee awards)
- Chandris, S.A. v. Yanakakis, 668 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1995) (noncompliant fee agreements do not preclude reasonable-value recovery in quantum meruit)
- Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1986) (summary proceeding is preferred method to enforce attorney charging lien)
- Norman v. Housing Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988) (attorney fee claims should not become a second major litigation; lodestar principles)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (standards for reasonableness of hours and fees)
- Kushner v. Engelberg, Cantor & Leone, P.A., 699 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1997) (trial court’s role in determining reasonable value of services and adjustments upon discharge)
- Bivins v. Wrap It Up, Inc., 548 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2008) (permitting across-the-board reductions for excessive time entries)