Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00210/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00210-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 45:51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability 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

1 Shortly before the parties settled this case, Mr. Lockshin

withdrew from representation.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE MILLER,

NO. CIV. S-01-210 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION

COMPANY; and UNION PACIFIC

RAILROAD COMPANY,

Defendants.

 /

On February 19, 2003, defendant filed a motion for leave of

court to deposit funds. Defendant notified the court that the

settlement agreement in the above-captioned case was in the amount

of $418,392.75, which was derived by adding $18,392.75, which

plaintiff’s former counsel, Larry Lockshin, claimed was expended

or incurred on behalf of his client.1 On January 17, 2003,

Lockshin filed a Notice of Attorney Lien, but never specified the

Case 2:01-cv-00210-LKK -GGH Document 140 Filed 12/07/05 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

2 The court is compelled to note that despite plaintiff’s

repeated efforts to determine the amount owed to his former

counsel, Larry Lockshin, he has been unable to do so, which the

court largely attributes to Mr. Lockshin. On December 24, 2002,

in response to a letter from plaintiff requesting an accounting of

the amount of attorney time which was spent on his case, Mr.

Lockshin wrote as follows:

Because I have been in trial in the Tim Bernal case, I

have not yet been able to provide the file to provide an

accounting of the amount of attorney time which has been

spent in the projection of your litigation. I have

devoted substantial time to your case and in preparing

for the prosecution of cumulative injury cases on behalf

of enginemen such as yourself. My time in your case

will be billed at the rate of $400.00 an hour. 

3 On December 23, 2002, after several attempts to obtain

information regarding Mr. Lockshin’s charges, plaintiff wrote a

letter to Mr. Lockshin, stating in pertinent part:

I was disappointed that you interrogated me regarding

the possibility I had talked to another attorney or the

railroad. It seemed to be further evidence of your

agenda being other than my individual case. You

suggested your possible hourly rate could be as high as

$350.00 an hour, an amount no one could afford. In

response to that, I’d offer I have not seen anything in

my case that would suggest you have earned anything near

that amount. Compounding the issue was your veiled

threat where you suggested I would regret it if I

attempted to negotiate with the railroad. I can only

assume you are not providing me with proof of your costs

and an amount you anticipate you should receive in way

of fees so that it will be an impediment if I attempt to

negotiate with the railroad. 

2

exact amount he believed he was owed.2

The court subsequently granted defendant’s motion to deposit

the funds and dismissed defendant from the case. The record

reflects that the maximum amount of attorney fees due to Lockshin

was deemed to be 25% of the remaining $400,000 in settlement

monies, an amount that remains in dispute.3 That 25% was based

upon the terminated contract percentage of fees. See Def.’s Mot.

Case 2:01-cv-00210-LKK -GGH Document 140 Filed 12/07/05 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

4 Oral argument shall be scheduled if the court finds it

necessary. 

3

at 2 (filed February 19, 2003); Ex. 8. On April 10, 2003,

defendant notified the court that it deposited with this court the

sum of $118,392.72. That amount remains in the court’s account.

Because there appears to be a dispute between plaintiff and his

former counsel as to this amount, the court hereby ORDERS that

plaintiff and his former counsel, Larry Lockshin, are each directed

to file briefs, no longer than ten (10) pages, setting forth their

appropriate claim to the deposited funds. Such briefs shall be due

no later than January 3, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. The matter shall stand

submitted upon receipt of the briefs.4

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 6, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:01-cv-00210-LKK -GGH Document 140 Filed 12/07/05 Page 3 of 3