[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 29 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 8 :1 0- cv -0 17 77 -SDM- EAJ MORENO FARM S, INC., Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r Defen da nt
App el le e,
ve rs us TOMATO THYME CORPORATION, Defen da nt -Co un te r Cl ai m an t, GERMAN J. TORRES , Defen da nt , KEATON & ASSOCI ATES, P.C., In te res te d P art y -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 17 , 20 12 ) Case: 12-10294 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 1 of 5Befo re J ORDAN, ANDE RSON an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Keat on & Ass oc ia te s, P.C. (“ Keat on ” ) ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s su bjec t

m at te r juri sd ic ti on to di sc ha rg e th ei r at to rn ey ’s li e n a g a i n s t th e pr oc eed s of a
se tt le m en t i n t he un de rlyin g l aws ui t i n t hi s ca se . W e aff irm. Pl ai nt iff Mo ren o Farm s, In c. em pl oyed Keat on as co un se l to su e th e Defen da nt Tom at o Thym e Co rp or at io n in th e So ut he r n D i s tri ct of Fl or id a, an d su it was fil ed

. Keat on la te r vo lu nt ari ly wit hd rew, an d fil ed an at to rn ey ’s li en ag ai n s t a n y fu nd s Mo ren o Farm s m ig ht reco ve r. (Dk t. 45 -1 at 1.) The un de rlyin g la wsu it th en se tt le d fo r $5 0,0 00

. Tom at o Thy m e pa id th at m on ey in to th e co ur t’s reg is try, bu t th e co ur t d i d no t di sb ur se th e fu nd s be cau se of Keat on ’s li en . Mo ren o Farm s m ov ed to di sc ha rg e th e li en . The di st ric t co ur t refe rred th e m at te r to a m ag is tra te jud ge , who ul ti m at el y

de cl ared th e li en in va li d. Keat on th en ap pe al ed th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s or de r to th is co ur t. W e qu es ti on ed

ou r juri sd ic ti on to he ar th at ap pe al

. Afte r t h e di st ric t co ur t cl ari fie d th at it ha d refe rred th e m at te r of Keat on ’s li en un de r 28 U.S.C. § 63 6( b) (1 )(A), we di s mi s se d th at ap pe al fo r wan t of juri sd ic ti on be cau se th e mag i s tra te jud ge ’s or de r was no t a fin al or ap pe al ab le or de r. (Dk t. 71 ); se e, e.g . , Pere z- Pri eg o v. Ala ch ua Cn ty
. Cl er k of Co ur t , 14 8 F.3 d 12 72 , 12 73 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ). Keat on th en m ov ed th e di st ric t co ur t
2 Case: 12-10294 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 2 of 5to va cat e th e mag i s t r a te jud ge ’s or de r. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th at m ot io n as

un ti m el y . Keat on no w a pp eal s th e de ni al of i t s m ot io n to va cat e th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s

or de r. W e are no t revi ewin g th e m eri ts of th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s or de r. Nor are we
rev ie win g th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’ au th or it y un de r 28 U.S.C. § 6 3 6 t o en te r an or de r in va li da ti ng Keat on ’s at to rn ey ’s li en . In st ead , Keat on co nt en ds th at , un de r ou r pr e c e d e nt , th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on to ad jud ic at e th e
va li di ty of it s at to rn ey ’s li en . ( Se e App el la nt ’s Br. at 15 (“ App el la nt arg ue s on ly on e is su e: juri sd ic ti on .”).) W e al way s h av e th e “ po wer” an d “ ob li ga ti on ” to ex am in e th e d is tri ct co ur t’s

su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Se e Fit zg er al d v. Se ab oa rd Sy s. R.R., In c. , 76 0 F.2 d 12 49 , 12 51 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 85 ) (ci ti ng Ph i l b r oo k v. Glo dg et t , 42 1 U.S. 70 7, 95 S. Ct

. 18 93 (1 97 5) ). W e rev ie w qu es ti on s of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on de no vo . Se e Uni v. of S. Ala

. v. Am. To ba cco Co

. , 16 8 F.3 d 40 5, 40 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. W e
rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l ju ris di ct io n fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Se e Lu cer o v. Tr os ch , 12 1 F.3 d 59 1, 59 8 (1 1t h C ir. 19 97 ) (ci ti ng Ch an dl er v. Mil le r , 75 F.3d 15 43 , 15 46 n.3 (11 th Cir . 19 96 )). W he n a di st ric t co ur t ha s or ig in al juri sd ic t i o n ov er a cl ai m , th e co ur t ha s
su pp le m en t a l juri sd ic ti on ov er al l cl ai m s whi ch are pa rt of th e sa m e cas e or
3 Case: 12-10294 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 3 of 5co nt ro ve rs y . Se e 28 U.S.C. § 13 67 (a). The ex is te nc e of an at to rn ey ’s li en ag ai ns t a

pa rty’ s reco ve ry in a la wsu it is pa rt of th e sa m e cas e or co nt ro ve rs y as th e un de rlyin g la wsu it

. Se e Bro ug ht en v. Vos s , 63 4 F.2 d 88 0, 88 3 (5 th Ci r. 19 81 ); Dog ge tt v. Dea uv il le Co rp . , 14 8 F .2d 88 1, 8 83 (5t h C ir. 1 94 5)

. 1 A di st r ic t co ur t “ m ay de cl in e to ex erci se ” it s su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on in
cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces . S e e 28 U.S.C. § 13 67 (c). A di st ric t co ur t ha s co ns id erab le di sc ret io n in m ak in g th at de ci si on . Se e, e.g . , Osb or n v. Hal ey , 54 9 U.S. 22 5, 24 5, 12 7 S. Ct

. 88 1, 89 6 (2 00 7) (“ Eve n if on ly st at e-l aw cl ai m s rem ai ne d aft er res ol ut io n of th e fed eral qu es ti on , th e Dis tri ct Co ur t wou ld ha ve di sc ret io n, co ns is te nt wit h Arti cl e III, to ret ai n juri sd ic ti on .”) (ci ta ti on om it te d) ; Pal mer v. Hos p. Aut h. of Ran do lp h Cn ty
. , 22 F.3 d 15 59 , 15 69 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ); Fau ch er v. Rod zi ewi cz , 89 1 F.2 d 86 4, 87 1– 72 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0)

. The di st ric t co ur t ha d or ig in al juri sd ic ti on ov er th e un de rlyin g la wsu it u n d e r 7 U .S.C. § 49 9e (5 ). Keat on fil ed an at to rn ey ’s li en ag ai ns t an y reco ve r y M o r e n o Farm s m ig ht ob ta in in th e su it

. The la wsu i t u l t i mat el y se tt le d, an d Mo ren o Farm s

I n Bonner v. City of

Pritchard , 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) , this court adopted 1 these F ifth Circuit cases a s binding pre cede nt. 4

Case: 12-10294 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 4 of 5reco ve red $5 0,0 00

. Thu s, th e co ur t ha d su pp le men ta l juri sd ic ti on to de ci de th e

va li di ty of Keat on ’s li en ag ai ns t t he $5 0,0 00

. 2 The co ur t ex erci se d su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er Keat on ’s li en . Thi s was no t

an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Neit he r § 13 67 (c) no r ou r cas es req ui red th at th e di st ric t co ur t de cl in e juri sd ic ti on he re. The ord er o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

. AFFIR MED.

The district court’s order dismi s s in g th e u n d e r ly in g la wsuit specific ally reta ined jurisdiction 2 over K eaton’ s lien. (Dkt. 44 at 2.) 5

Case: 12-10294 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 5 of 5