Title: BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID & LOVE, PLLC V. HONORABLE EDDY COLEMAN, JUDGE, PIKE CIRCUIT COURT AND GETTY LAW GROUP, PLLC, F/K/A GETTY, KEYSER & MAYO, LLP,

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION . ,*ixyreMr ~Vurf of T,j 2008-SC-000678-MR BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID 8v LOVE, PLLC HONORABLE EDDY COLEMAN, JUDGE, PIKE CIRCUIT COURT AND RENDERED : MARCH 19, 2009 T ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS V. CASE NO. 2008-CA-000405-OA PIKE CIRCUIT COURT NO . 96-CI-00429 GETTY LAW GROUP, PLLC, F/K/A GETTY, KEYSER 8, MAYO, LLP, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST APPELLEES MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING The Appellant, Bowles, Rice, McDavid & Love, PLLC, appeals an order of the Court of Appeals denying a petition for a writ of mandamus . Finding no error, the Court of Appeals is affirmed . The underlying facts are relevant to this matter in only a limited sense. The Appellant and the Appellee, the Getty Law Group, PLLC, are involved in a dispute over a contingency fee earned in the 1990s. The client originally hired the Appellant, who was later fired. The client then hired Appellee, who completed the litigation . Further litigation ensued over the proper division of the contingency fee . The matter went to trial in 1999 . In a series of appeals, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the circuit court to apply Labach v. Hampton , 585 S.W.2d 434 (Ky . App. 1979) . Before the circuit court decided the case, however, this Court overruled Labach in Baker v . Shapero, 203 S.W.3d 697 (Ky . 2006) . The circuit court then indicated that it would follow Baker and that it was not bound by Labach under the law-of-the-case doctrine . The Appellant sought a writ of mandamus against the circuit court ordering it to follow the mandate in the previous decisions to apply Labach . The Court of Appeals denied the petition, noting that the Appellant had not satisfied the requirements for issuance of one of the extraordinary writs and citing to an exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine where there has been an intervening change in the controlling authority . Appellant then appealed to this Court as a matter of right. Ky. Const . § 115; CR 76 .36(7)(a) . Petitions for the extraordinary writs, whether of mandamus or prohibition, fall into two classes: (1) where the petitioner alleges the lower court has no jurisdiction ; and (2) where the petitioner acknowledges that the lower court has jurisdiction but claims that it is acting erroneously and that irreparable harm will occur that cannot be remedied on appeal . Hoskins v. Maricle , 150 S.W .3d 1, 9 (Ky. 2004) . In evaluating such petitions, reviewing courts are to apply the following standard : A writ of prohibition may be granted upon a showing that (1) the lower court is proceeding or is about to proceed outside of its jurisdiction and there is no remedy through an application to an intermediate court; or (2) that the lower court is acting or is about to act erroneously, although within its jurisdiction, and there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great injustice and irreparable injury will result if the petition is not granted. Id. at 10 . "Although Hoskins involved a request for a writ of prohibition, we have indicated that the same showing must be made to obtain a writ of mandamus ." Estate of Cline v. Weddle, 250 S .W.3d 330, 334 n.5 (Ky. 2008) (citing Sowders v . Lewis, 241 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Ky. 2007); Hodge v. Coleman, 244 S.W.3d 102, 109 (Ky. 2008)) . The Appellant argues that both classes of writ are applicable . It claims that the circuit court has no jurisdiction not to follow the mandate of the Court of Appeals. While it is correct that a lower court is bound by the mandates and decisions of the higher courts, the lower court does not lose jurisdiction if it refuses to do so . The Pike Circuit Court clearly has jurisdiction over this matter . The Appellant also argues that it satisfies the second class of writs because of the delay in this case (the fee issue having been litigated since 1999) . First, despite Appellant's claim otherwise, delay is not "great injustice and irreparable injury," nor does it satisfy the "certain special cases" exception to this requirement found in Hoskins and its progeny. "'[T]he delay incident to litigation and appeal by litigants who may be financially distressed cannot be considered as unjust, does not constitute irreparable injury, and is not a miscarriage of justice .' Independent Order of Foresters v . Chauvin, 175 S.W.3d 610, 616 (Ky. 2005) (quoting Ison v. Bradley, 333 S.W.2d 784, 786 (Ky. 1960)) . Second, even assuming delay was sufficient, there has been no showing of a lack of an adequate remedy by appeal . The law-of-the-case issue can be resolved on appeal . Finally, that the Appellant is not entitled to the writ is underscored by the fact that the court whose mandate it claims the circuit court is ignoring is the same court that declined to issue the writ. This simply is not the sort of "extraordinary case" required for a writ of mandamus to issue. See Cox v . Braden , 266 S.W .3d 792, 796 (Ky. 2008) . This Court thus cannot say the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in denying the writ . The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed . Minton, C.J . ; Abramson, Cunningham, Noble, Schroder and Venters, JJ ., concur . Scott, J., not sitting. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Max Kirby Thompson 140 Scott Avenue PO Box 1079 Pikeville, Kentucky 41502 APPELLANT: Honorable Eddy Coleman 172 Division Street Suite 435 Pikeville, Kentucky 41501 COUNSEL FOR REAL PARTY IN INTEREST : Charles D. Greenwell Goldberg, Simpson LLC 9301 Dayflower Street Prospect, Kentucky 40059 Marrs A. May 209 2nd Street, Suite 101 PO Box 1465 Pikeville, Kentucky 41502-1465 Augustus S . Herbert Laura Beth Grubbs Middleton 8s Reutlinger 2500 Brown 8s Williamson Tower Louisville, Kentucky 40202