1:21-cv-02942
E.D.N.YAug 1, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Law Offices of Aleksandr Vakarev (referred to as "Vakarev") represented Abeer Alrabahi in a wrongful-death matter and claims to have obtained a $1,500,000 offer and spent extensive time on the case.
- Alrabahi later retained Barrett Law Group and Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca; Vakarev was discharged and the parties executed a consent-to-change-attorney agreement that included a forum-selection clause designating Supreme Court, Kings County for fee disputes.
- Defendants later secured a $1,900,000 settlement for Alrabahi and refused to pay the fees Vakarev claims; Vakarev sued in New York State court to recover his portion of the fees.
- Defendants removed the action to the Eastern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction; Vakarev moved to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, invoking the forum-selection clause.
- The court held the clause enforceable, found the dispute was a covered fee dispute, granted remand to Kings County, and declined to award attorneys’ fees for the remand.
- Because remand was granted, the court did not decide defendants’ other motions (change venue, dismissal for failure to state a claim, or lack of personal jurisdiction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of forum-selection clause | Clause requires fee disputes be resolved in Supreme Court, Kings County; should be enforced | Forum-selection clause unenforceable because circumstances make enforcement unreasonable | Enforced: clause applies to this fee dispute; remand granted |
| Whether defendants’ allegations of Vakarev misconduct defeat the clause | Misconduct claims go to fee merits, not clause validity; no fraud or coercion to vitiate clause | Misconduct (including withholding file) shows coercion/unconscionability making clause unfair | Court: allegations largely relate to merits; only withholding-file claim addressed and did not show coercion sufficient to avoid clause |
| Scope of clause (does it cover this claim) | Claim is a dispute over division/payment of attorneys’ fees from settlement | Defendants contested scope indirectly via misconduct defense | Held: claim squarely falls within fee-dispute clause and is covered |
| Award of attorneys’ fees/costs for remand | Seeks fees under §1447 because removal was improper | Defendants argue removal had a reasonable basis | Denied: court finds defendants had a reasonable basis for removal and declines fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Karl Koch Erecting Co. v. New York Convention Ctr. Dev. Corp., 838 F.2d 656 (2d Cir. 1988) (forum-selection clauses requiring state-court venue are enforceable in the Second Circuit)
- Callen v. Callen, 827 F. Supp. 2d 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (courts should resolve remand motions before transfer/venue motions)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nandi, 258 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (discussing attorney rights to retain client file when discharged for cause)
- Children's Vill. v. Greenburgh Eleven Teachers' Union Fed'n of Tchrs., Loc. 1532, 867 F. Supp. 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (district courts may award fees on remand when removal lacked a reasonable basis)