Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05624/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05624-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE VASQUEZ, CASE NO. CV-F-02-5624 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES 

AND COUNSEL TO FILE

FURTHERBRIEFINGONMOTION(Doc106)

vs. AND VACATING HEARING

JIM AARTMAN, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

By notice filed on June 3, 2005, Plaintiffs Jorge Vasquez and Ruben Hernandez move for

Findings and Recommendations that this Court does not have jurisdiction over a “Notice of Claim of

Lien” filed by Green & Azevedo on April 13, 2005.

The Court requires further briefing of the issues. In particular, the parties rely upon a state law

procedure. Plaintiffs rely upon Carroll v. Interstate Brads corp, 99 Cal.App.4th 1168 (2002) which held

that a “lien” filed by a former attorney cannot be enforced in the underlying action and is a “superfluous

document.” The attorney must bring a separate action to enforce the lien. 

The parties, however, are before this Court on federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1331 and

29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. Neither the moving papers nor the opposition address federal law. Supplemental

jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. That section vests jurisdiction in district courts having

original jurisdiction of an action "over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within

Case 1:02-cv-05624-LJO -SMS Document 111 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the

United States Constitution." § 1367(a). The Ninth Circuit has stated, in dicta, that a federal court will

have jurisdiction to enforce a lien ancillary to a case properly before it. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins.

Corp. v. Ferrante, 364 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th 2004). Federal courts may exercise ancillary jurisdiction

to adjudicate fee disputes between litigants and their attorneys that are collateral to (or arising out of)

issues in the underlying action: “(D)etermining the legal fees a party to a lawsuit properly before the

court owes its attorney, with respect to the work done in the suit being litigated, easily fits the concept

of ancillary jurisdiction.”Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Ferrante, 364 F3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir.

2004) (internal quotes omitted). The Ninth Circuit ultimately held that the district court lacked ancillary

enforcement jurisdiction over the suit brought to enforce a promissory note for attorney's fees that was

entered after judgments were entered in underlying litigation and that was wholly unrelated to the

underlying actions. Nonetheless, the court noted that the jurisdiction would exist if faced with facts that,

coincidently, are currently before this Court in the instant motion: “Had [the law firm] attempted to

assert its attorney liens for services performed in connection with a particular action, it might have

successfully invoked ancillary jurisdiction.” Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Ferrante, 364 F.3d

at 1041. "[D]etermining the legal fees a party to a lawsuit properly before the court owes its attorney,

with respect to the work done in the suit being litigated, easily fits the concept of ancillary jurisdiction."

Id. The Ninth Circuit relied upon Jenkins v. Weinshienk, 670 F.2d 915 (10th Cir.1982). See also, Iowa

v. Union Asphalt & Roadoils, Inc., 409 F.2d 1239, 1243-44 (8th Cir.1969) (after attorneys had been

granted leave to withdraw, court had ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate attorneys' claim for fees);

American Fed'n of Tobacco--Growers v. Allen, 186 F.2d 590, 592 (4th Cir.1951) (per curiam) (after

settlement of antitrust action, court had ancillary jurisdiction to resolve dispute among attorneys over

distribution of fees).

Here, the motion is a motion by the party plaintiffs, Jorge Vasquez and Ruben Hernandez, to

determine that this Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a lien for attorney fees by their former

attorneys. 

/////

/////

Case 1:02-cv-05624-LJO -SMS Document 111 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The parties are to address their positions as to this Court’s jurisdiction based on federal authority

or explain why they contend state procedure is controlling. The parties shall file their briefs no later than

July 22, 2005.

The Hearing set for July 15, 2005 is VACATED. The Court intends to take the motion under

submission, and will schedule oral argument should the Court require further argument on the issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05624-LJO -SMS Document 111 Filed 07/13/05 Page 3 of 3