Morad Elusta v. City of Chicago, 696 F.3d 690

Elusta, the former client, disputes fee awards after prevailing on civil rights claims against the City of Chicago.
Smith and Genson received $82,696.50 in attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which the City paid to them.
Cerda and De Leon were paid $15,000 in quantum meruit; the district court found no lien under Illinois law but awarded quantum meruit.
Elusta sought to divert 60% of both the § 1988 award and the quantum meruit award to himself, with the remainder to the attorneys.
The district court denied Elusta’s request; Elusta appeals challenging both the fee division and the quantum meruit distribution.
The court also addresses whether it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the quantum meruit claim and whether sanctions against opposing counsel are warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May Elusta share in Smith & Genson’s § 1988 fee award?	Elusta argues the retainer covers 60%.	The agreement provides that fees recovered are divided, and statutory fees go to the attorneys.	No; Elusta not entitled to the § 1988 fee award.
May Elusta share in the quantum meruit award to Cerda and De Leon?	Elusta seeks 60% of the $15,000.	Quantum meruit aims to avoid unjust enrichment; Elusta already benefited and cannot keep it.	No; Elusta not entitled to any of the $15,000; City not liable.
Does the district court have supplemental jurisdiction over the quantum meruit dispute?	Limited to the underlying federal case; not related.	Claims are closely related to the underlying litigation; jurisdiction valid.	Yes; supplemental jurisdiction proper.
Are sanctions warranted against Elusta’s current attorneys for their appeal conduct?	Frivolousness of the appeal by Elusta’s counsel warrants sanctions.	No proper basis for sanctions against opposing counsel.	No sanctions against Elusta’s current attorneys.

Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82 (1990) (waiver of attorney’s fees rights under contract; de novo review of contract terms)
Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988) (timing of appeals in fee proceedings; merits decision allows later fee disputes)
Abbott Laboratories v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 290 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2002) (supplemental jurisdiction over related attorney’s fee disputes)
Clarion Corp. v. American Home Products Corp., 464 F.2d 444 (7th Cir. 1972) (fee disputes tied to underlying federal action can be adjudicated)
Matthews v. Homecomings Fin. Network, Inc., 264 F. App’x 536 (7th Cir. 2008) (supplemental jurisdiction for attorney’s fee claims in related litigation)
In re Estate of Callahan, 578 N.E.2d 985 (Ill. 1991) (quantum meruit prevents unjust enrichment; former client liable for value of services)
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg & Ament, P.C. v. Lison, 696 N.E.2d 1196 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (quantum meruit recovery principles; unjust enrichment)