Michael Bregman v. Steven Perles
409 U.S. App. D.C. 143
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Bregman, a retired ATF agent, worked for lawyers Perles, Fay, and Schwarz from 2002–2004 as an investigator/consultant without a written compensation agreement; he claims ~4,480 hours of unpaid work (~$1.12M).
- In September 2008, after a Libya settlement related to the LaBelle bombing was imminent, Bregman’s counsel sent a letter asserting a $1.1M claim and purporting to lien any contingency fee recovered.
- On September 25, 2008, Perles’s lawyer replied rejecting Bregman’s claim in unequivocal terms, calling it frivolous and denying any agreement or significant work by Bregman; the letter also stated no funds had yet been received.
- The Beecham plaintiffs’ settlement funds were distributed on November 17, 2008; Perles, Fay, and Schwarz received ~$35.9M and Bregman received nothing.
- Bregman sued on October 26, 2011 alleging breach-of-contract claims (against Perles), unjust enrichment (against all three), and declaratory relief. The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as time-barred; Bregman appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did unjust enrichment claim accrue for statute-of-limitations purposes? | Accrual occurs when defendants actually recover the contingent fee (Nov. 17, 2008); before that there was no fund from which restitution could be required. | Accrual occurred when defendants unequivocally refused payment (Sept. 25, 2008); at that point retention became unjust and SOL began to run. | Held: Accrual on Sept. 25, 2008 — the 9/25 letter was an unequivocal refusal and the claim is time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- News World Commc’ns v. Thompsen, 878 A.2d 1218 (D.C. 2005) (an unjust-enrichment claim accrues when defendant’s retention becomes unjust—typically upon a refusal to pay)
- Vila v. Inter–Am. Inv. Corp., 570 F.3d 274 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (accrual occurs at the first unequivocal refusal to pay)
- Jordan Keys & Jessamy, LLP v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 870 A.2d 58 (D.C. 2005) (elements of unjust enrichment defined)
- Fort Lincoln Civic Ass’n, Inc. v. Fort Lincoln New Town Corp., 944 A.2d 1055 (D.C. 2008) (reaffirming unjust-enrichment framework)
- Baer v. Chase, 392 F.3d 609 (3d Cir. 2003) (quasi-contract accrues when services rendered create unjust enrichment, not upon subsequent contingent event)