Manuel Quiroz, Jr. v. Jeffrey Dickerson
714 F. App'x 646
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Quiroz advanced litigation funds for a suit handled by attorney Jeffrey Dickerson and expected repayment from settlement proceeds.
- Dickerson drafted the settlement, plaintiffs received funds, but Dickerson refused to reimburse Quiroz.
- Quiroz sued; case was filed in the Northern District of California and transferred to the District of Nevada on Dickerson’s motion.
- A jury awarded Quiroz relief; the district court also issued post-judgment remedies (including a writ of execution and garnishment of 25% of non-exempt income).
- Dickerson appealed, challenging venue transfer, characterization of Quiroz as an intended third-party beneficiary/contractual claimant, jury instructions (including a defalcation question), invocation of attorney-client privilege, and the post-judgment enforcement orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Quiroz) | Defendant's Argument (Dickerson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer vs dismissal of case | Transfer to Nevada was proper; case belongs where defendant practices | Case should have been dismissed rather than transferred | Transfer was not an abuse of discretion; affirmed (transfer proper) |
| Third‑party beneficiary / contractual relationship | Quiroz claims arise from the retainer—he is an intended third‑party beneficiary entitled to reimbursement | Settlement cannot be read to recognize Quiroz; so no contractual relationship; therefore some tort claims fail | District court’s factual findings that Quiroz was an intended third‑party beneficiary were not clearly erroneous; claims allowed |
| Jury question on defalcation | Finding supports Quiroz’s recovery and is consistent with judgment | Question irrelevant or prejudicial and meant to protect judgment from bankruptcy | Court found the question appropriate; Dickerson failed to show error |
| Attorney‑client privilege defense | N/A (Quiroz challenges misuse of client instructions) | Alleged client instruction not to pay Quiroz creates privilege shielding Dickerson from liability | Privilege argument unsupported by authority; court rejected it |
| Enforcement: writ of execution and garnishment | Post‑judgment remedies appropriate under Rule 69 and Nevada law | Enforcement orders inconsistent with Rule 69; improper remedies | District court’s writ and 25% garnishment were within Rule 69/NV procedure; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Muldoon v. Tropitone Furniture Co., 1 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 1993) (transfer under §1404(a) can be proper despite lack of personal jurisdiction)
- United States v. Wilkes, 662 F.3d 524 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review: mixed questions de novo, factual findings for clear error)
- Portland Feminist Women’s Health Ctr. v. Advocates for Life, Inc., 877 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1989) (appellate review limited when record is incomplete)
- R. H. Baker & Co. v. Smith‑Blair, Inc., 331 F.2d 506 (9th Cir. 1964) (consideration of whether omitted jury questions should have been asked)
- Crockett & Myers, Ltd. v. Napier, Fitzgerald & Kieby, LLP, 583 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2009) (discusses attorney‑client privilege boundaries)
- Shuffler v. Heritage Bank, 720 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir. 1983) (limits on enforcing money judgments other than by writ of execution under Rule 69)
- Schneider v. Nat. R.R. Passenger Corp., 72 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1995) (addressed enforcement methods for federal money judgments)