For an e n t e r t a i n i n g me di t a t i o n o n th e p r o p e r s p e l l i ng 1 of“att orney’ s fees , ” s ee S ta l l w o r th v . G re a te r C lev ela n d R eg ’l Transi tA uth. , 10 5 F .3d 252 , 25 3 n .1 ( 6th C i r. 1997 ) (“Sh ou ld we r efert o ‘ at t or ne y fee s , ’ ‘ at t or ne ys fees, ’ ‘at t or ne y’ s fee s , ’ or
‘ a t t o r n e y s ’ f ee s ? ’ I n fe de r a l s t a tu t e s , r u l e s a n d c a s e s , we fi nd the s e form s us ed i nt er c han ge abl y, na y, pr om i s c uous l y. (co n tin u ed ...) 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2261 M ORAD E LUS TA, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. C ITY OF C HI CAGO, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C4264

—A my J . St . E ve, Judg e.
A RG UE D A PRI L 11, 2012

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 4, 2012

Befo re W OO D , W I L L I A MS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. T his is a case abou t attorn ey’s fees . But i t i s no t the typi cal att or ney’ s fees case i n w hi ch 12 N o. 11

- 2261

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 Th e r e i s s om eti m e s n o c on s i s t e nc y wi thi n e ve n the s a m e bo dy ofl a w. ” )
. I n thi s d eci s i on, we wi l l f ol l ow the t e x to f4 2 U. S
. C. § 19 8 8 an d re fer to th e a w a rd s a t i s s u e a s “ a tt o rn ey ’s fees ,” e v e n th o u g h o f c o u r s e we r e c o g n i z e th a t mor e than on e att orney st and s to benefitfrom the fees i n thi s cas e. a n a t t o r ne y s e e k s r e v i ew of a c o ur t ’ s a wa r d, p e r ha ps a r g u i n g ab o u t a n i mpr o p e r l y c a l c u l a t e d l o d e s t a r . I ns t e a d h e r e , a c l i en t

— M or ad Elust a

— s e e k s t o c o mpe l t wo o fhi s f o r m era tt o r ne y s, Za ne S m i tha nd S he l i a Gen so n, to tur n o ve r s o m e of th e fee a war d t o hi m . S m i tha nd Genson rep re sented Elusta i n a c i vi l r i ghts sui t a gainst the Ci ty ofChicago, i n w hi ch he won a $ 40, 000 j ud gm ent. Pursuant to 42 U
. S. C. § 1 988, the cour t then aw ar ded El usta $82, 696. 50 f orhi s a tto rney ’ s fees , wh i ch th e Ci tyha s sinc e pai d t o S m i tha nd Ge ns o n. I n additi on, the cou rt e nter tai ned fe e cl ai m s fro m t wo mo r e o fE l u s t a ’ s f o r me r a t t o r n e y s , D a v i d C e r da a n d J o h n De Le o n, w h o r e p r e s e n t e d E l u s t a i n th e s a me m att er b efor e S m i th and Genson t oo k o ver . The di str i ct c ourtdeter m i ned that al though Cer da an d D e L eon coul d not a sse rtan a tto rney ’ s l i en o n Elust a’ s j ud gm en t, El us ta s ho ul d st i l l pa y the m $ 15 , 00 0 i n q uan t um m er uit f orthei r ser vi ces. El usta now i nsi sts thatthe City ofChica go, n ot he, sho uld pay the quantum m er uit aw ar d, an d on to p ofthat, he i s e nti tl ed to r eta i n 60% o f the a m ount a w ar ded f orthe attorneys. Li ke the di str i ct co ur t, we fi nd the se a r g um en ts to b e en ti r ely wi th o ut me r i t
. We th u s a ffi r m.N o. 11

- 2261 3 I I n the und er l yi ng case , Elusta sued the City o f C hi cago and severalo fi ts pol i ce o ffi cer s forexce ssi ve f or ce, f al se ar re st, and i ntenti on al infl i cti on o fem oti onaldi str ess thathe s uffer ed i n conj uncti on w ith thei r sea rch of hi s ho m e a nd hi s s ubsequent arr es t. H e fi rs t r eta i ned Cer d a an d De Le o n t o b r i ngthe se c l ai m s. Ce r da an d De Leon co nd ucted dis cove ryand ob tai ned a se ttl em en t o ffero f $100 , 00 0 f r o m the Ci tyo fChi ca g o . But Elusta r ej ecte d thi s o ffer, apparent l y b ecause he was up setthathi s r eta i ner agr eem ent with Cerda and De Leon con t a i ne d a 4 0 % c o nt i ng e ntfe e p r o v i s i o n. Al tho ugh the p ar ties at tem pted m edi ati on t o re sol ve the di spute ov er th e fe e a rra n ge m en t, th e d ist ric t c ou rtev en tu ally perm i tte d C er da and D e Leo n to withdraw f ro m the c ase . Elusta had diffi cul ty fi nd i ng new atto rney s t o re prese nthi m , b uthe ul ti m at ely retai ne d S m i tha nd Ge ns o n. The y t o o kth e c a s e t o t r i a l b e f o r e a j u r y, wh i c h f o und i n Elust a’ s f avo r on t w o ofthe counts ( excess i ve f or ce an d i nt en ti o na l i nfl i ct i o n o fem o ti o na l di st r es s) a nd aw ar ded hi m a tot alo f$4 0, 000. S m ith a n d Genson th en p et itio n ed th e c ou rtfor a tt o r n e y ’s fe es on be h alf of Elu sta p urs ua nt to 42 U
. S. C
. § 1988. Before the co urt coul d rul e o n the peti ti on, El usta re tai ned a t h ird set o f att or neys

— Donal d Jo hnson and J ose ph G entl em an

— to l i t i g a t e th e fe e i s s ue . J o hn s o n a nd Ge nt l e manfi l e d a m oti on s eek i ng to di re ct pay m ent o fso m e o fthe fees to Elusta, r atherthan to Sm i th and Gens on . Th e co urt dism i sse d that m oti on as prem atur e, as i t had no t yetru l ed o n the fee pe ti ti o n.4 N o. 11

- 2261 Sm ith an d G en so n ’s p et itio n lan gu is h ed for n ea rly 16 m o nths wi th o ut a r ul i ng . At th at po i nt, Cer da and De Leon fi l ed the ir own m oti on f orfees , as ser ti ng an at to rn ey ’s lien on th e jud gm en t o r i n th e a lte rn at ive , a righ t t o rec over th e value of their w ork un d er q uan t um m er uit
. On Dece m be r 1 3, 2 01 0, the di st r i ctc o ur t r es o l ve d the various fee m otions. I t grant ed Sm ith a nd Ge ns on’s re quest that i t aw ar d $82, 696. 50 i n fees pursuant to § 1 988. Cerda and De Leon, i t co n c lu d ed , had not com pli ed w ith I ll inois state l a w req uirem en ts to p erfect an attorneys’ l i en, bu t the co urt deci ded thattheyco uld r ec o v e r $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 i n quantum m er uit . E lu st a t h en refile d h is m ot ion se ek in g t o h av e 6 0% of bo th am ou n ts p aid to hi m di r ec tly b y the Ci tyo fChicago , wi ththe rem aind er going to the att orney s. T he d is t r ict court denie d Elusta ’ s m oti on, ther eby concl ud i ng i ts w or k o n the fee i ssues , and Elust a no w appeal s.

II W e b eg i n wi thEl us ta ’ s as se r ti o n tha t he ha s a r i g ht to a po r ti o n o fthe fees aw ard ed to S m i tha nd Ge ns o n. I t is w ell established that statu tory attorn ey’s fees are aw ar ded to a preva i l i ng p ar ty, but that the par ty i s fre e to w ai ve ornego ti ate herr i ght to t h e fees i n her c on tr ac t w ith co u n se l. Venegas v. M it chel l , 49 5 U.S
. 82 , 87

- 90 ( 1990 )
. W e thus m ust l oo k t o Elusta ’s ret ai ner agr eem en t wi thS m i tha nd Ge ns o n t o s ee i ftha t agr ee m en t suppo r t s Elus t a . Int e r pr e t a t i o n o fthi s c o nt r a c tr a i s es q u e s t i o n s o fl a w th a tw e r e v i e w de n o vo . Thom as v.N o. 11

- 2261 5 Gen e r al M ot ors Acc ept anc eCorp. , 288 F. 3d 305, 30 7 ( 7th C ir. 2002). T h e p er tin en t la n gu ag e in th e a gr ee m en t is th e fo llow in g: [ T ] h e C l i e n t ( s ) a c k n o wl e d g e s h i s /h e r u n d e r s t a n di ng o f an d co ns en t to th e f ac t th at [ Gen so n an d Sm i th ] w ill d i v i d e th e a tt or n ey ’s fe es rec ov er ed in t h e C lien t(s )’s c laim

. Elusta ar gues that the phra se “the att or ney’s fees ” does no tc l e a r l y c o v e r a l l of the a t t o r ne y ’ s fe e s . ( Th i s r e mi nd s u s o f H u m p ty D u m p ty ’s c om m en t a b ou t m e an in g in Thro ug h th e Lo o k ing -G la ss , but w e w i l l l et that pass. ) El usta be l i ev es tha t o th erl an g ua g e in the a g r ee m en t

— nam el y, the c onti ngent provi sion

— contr ol s the am ount o fat
torney’ s fees thatar e a vai l abl e forS m i th and Genson to di vi de be twe enthe m se l ve s. He i s r efer r i ngt o the lan guage pro vi ding that the c l i ent ( Elusta ) would pay hi s a tto rney s “ [ a] sum equalto 40 % o fthe gr oss am ount r eco ver ed fro m the cl ai m byse ttl em ent o r J ud gm en t.” Elust a thin ks th at th e attorn ey’s fee aw a r d i s p art o ft h e a m ou n t re c ov er ed “b y s et tle m en t o r Ju d gm en t.” H e then concl ud es that he i s e nt i tl ed to 60 % o fthe fee aw ar d a nd tha tS mi th a nd Ge ns o n c o l l e c t i v e l y r e c e i ve th e r emai ni ng4 0%, t o di vi de as the y wi sh

. The contr act cannot bearEl usta’s i nter preta ti on. W hat i t doe s, i n effect, i s t o saythatco unseli s e nti tled t o re cei ve 40% o fany dam age s ( the c onti ngent fee) ; i ffees are aw ard ed to Elu s ta p urs ua ntto § 1988, th e attorne y s r ec ei ve a l l o fthat a w ard

. The l an g ua g e th atthe a t t o r ne y s “ wi l l di v i de the a t t o r ne y ’ s fe e s r e cove re d” un a mbi g uo us l y c o v e r s a l l o fthe a t t o r ne y ’ s fe e s r eco v-6 N o. 11

- 2261

er ed . To co m e o u t E lu st a’ s w ay , th e a gr ee m en t w ou ld have to be r ew or ded to sa y s om ethi ng l i ke “the att or neys w ill d ivid e th eir p or tio n o f th e a tt or n ey ’s fe es rec ov er ed .” The contingent fee provi si on plai nl y doe s no t hav e a nythi ngt o s a y ab o uts t a t ut o r y fe e s . T he c o nt r a c ta wa r ds 60 % of a “ se tt lem en t o r Ju d gm en t” to E lu st a, n ot“fe es .” Elusta ar gues that the c on tr ac t’ s use o fthe ter m “J ud gm ent” m ust a l so en c om pass “ fees , ” but he cannot supp or t this idi osy ncrat i c vi ew . The co ntra ct di st i n g ui sh e s b e t we e n j u d g me n t s a n d fe e s i n th e t wo cl auses quote d above , and that dist i ncti on i s a l m ost u n i v er sa l in t h e c as e la w . See , e . g. , Budi ni ch v. Be ct on D i ck i ns on & Co. , 48 6 U.S
. 19 6, 20 0 ( 1988 ) (a ttorne y’ s fees ar e “ not gener al l y t re ate d as par t of the m er i ts j ud gm ent”)
. W e thus agr ee w i th the d ist ri ct c ourtthatEl usta i s not enti tl ed to any of the $82, 696. 50 fee aw ar d that th e Ci tyo fChi ca g o pa i d t o S m i tha nd Ge ns o n.

III Elusta ’ s a rgum ent with re spect to t he $1 5, 000 aw ar ded to Ce r da an d De L eon i n quantum m er uit prese nts a n ad d itio n al d ifficu lty , bec au se th e r e is a th re sh old questi on w hether the dist ri ct cour t had j uri sdic ti on t o con side r this clai m i n th e fi rst p lace. T he d is t rict court b elie ve d th at it h ad su p p lem en ta l j u ris d ict ion ov er th is s t a t e - l a w ma t t e r b e c a u s e C e r d a a n d D e L e o n’ s c l a i ms f o r fee s wer e i nt i m at ely r e l at ed to the unde r l y i ngl i ti g at i o n. Inou r vie w , th e c o u r t c or re c tly co n c lu d ed th at it coul d exerc i se j uri sdic ti on o verthi s par t o fthe dispute. A tto rney ’ s fee disputes ar e cl ose l y e nough r el ated toN o. 11

- 2261 7 the underl yi ng l i ti gat ion t o be the bas i s forsupplem entalj uri sdic ti on, ev en i f othe r att or ney- cl i ent di sputes, such as m al pract i ce a cti ons, ar e no t. S ee A bbo tt La bo rato ries v. C VS Ph arm acy, Inc. , 29 0 F
. 3d 854, 85 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( re cogni zi ng t h at “supp l em entalj uri sdic ti on has bee n cap aciou s enou gh to i nc lud e claim s by or against th ird p arties” su ch as clai m s abou t attorn ey’ s fees); Cl ar i on C o rp. v. A m erica n H o m e P rod uc ts C o rp . , 4 6 4 F
. 2 d 4 44, 44 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 72) ( “There i s no questi on . . . th at a F edera l Dist rict C ou rtm ay adj ud i cate the att or ney’ s fee questi on pu rs u an t to the l i en cr eat ed by [ a s tat e] st atute ; the theo ry bei ng that i f the or i gi nal acti on ha s a pro per basis f orFe deralj uri sdic ti on then any re cove ryachi eve d by that sui t cr eat es an at tachabl e int er estupon w hi ch th e at to r ne y m ay as se r t hi s cl ai m f o r fee s. ”)
. In M at t he ws v. Hom e co m i ngs Fi n. Ne t work, Inc . , 26 4 F
. A pp ’x 53 6, 5 3 7

- 3 8 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a n o n p r e c e d e n t i a l d i s p o s i t i o n, we note d that “ because o fa hi gh degr ee ofr el at ed n ess, supp l em ental j uri sdic ti on extends to su its ov er att or n ey’ s fees f orwork i n und er l yi ng l i ti gat i on that is a lre ad y w ith in th e c ou rt ’s jur isd ict ion .” T h e c ou rtin M at t he ws , as here, enterta ined the ad j ud ica t io n of a st at e l aw a ttorne y ’ s l i ena nd a n a l te r na ti ve a r g um en t f o r r ec o ve r y i n quantum m er uit
. Id. at53 9. W e thus turn to t h e m er i ts ofEl usta’ s a rgum ent that he sho uld s hare i n the quantum m er uitaward. I t f ai l s for m uchthe s ame r ea so n tha t sa nkhi s cl ai m t o pa r t o fthe Sm i th and Genson award. El usta poi nts t o a s i m i l ar co nt i ng en t fee c l au se i n h i s ag r ee m en t wi thCerd a a nd De Leon and ar gu es t h at thi s m eans he sho uld k eep 60 % of t h e $ 15 ,00 0. W e a gr ee w ith th e d ist ric t c ou r t th at th is8 N o. 11

- 2261 argu m en t “d efi es logi c.” Th e pu rp ose of quantum m er uit is t o p re ve n tu nj u st en ric h m en t. In reEs t at eof Cal l ahan , 578 N
. E.2 d 985, 98 8 ( I l l . 1 99 1). The co urt aw ar ded $1 5, 000 to Cerda and De Leon pr eci sel y b ecause i t co ncl ud ed that i t would b e u nj ust forEl usta to kee p that m oney after he h ad received the be ne fi ts of Cerd a an d De Le on’s ser vi ces. El usta i s thus, byd efi ni ti on, notenti tl ed to kee p any o fi t. S ee M uch Shel is t Fre ed D en en be rg & Am ent, P .C . v. Lis on , 69 6 N
. E.2 d 1196, 11 99 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 98) ( “In quantum m er u it re c ov er y, th e fo rm er clie n t is liab le f o r th e r ea so nabl e va l ue o f th e se r vi ce s r ec ei ved du ri ng th e attorn ey’s em p loym en t.”)
. The sam e pr i nci ple a lso doom s El usta’ s a rgum ent that the Ci ty ofChica go shoul d be on the ho ok f orthe $15, 000. The enti re purpose ofthe quantum m er uit cl ai m i s t o disg or ge w ro ngfully r eta i ned m oneyfro m the party w ho received th e ben efi t of the w ork

— that i s, the “f or m er cl i ent, ” El usta. I t is no t a st atuto ryat torney’ s fee to be pai d by the Ci ty ofChica go .
IV W e fi na l l y a ddr es s th e m o ti o n b r o ug htb y S m i tha nd G en so n d u ring this ap p eal f or sanc tions again st E lusta’s cur r en t at to r ne y s, J o hns o n a nd Ge nt l eman. Sm i tha nd Genson ar gue that these att or neys should be sanct i oned b ec au se “the Orderthattheyappealfro m [ the deni alo f th e m ot ion to d ire c t pa ym en t o f fee s] is n otan ap p ea lab le Order. ” In Sm i th and Genson’ s v i ew , “the fi nal Order w as enter ed on O c to b er 16 , 20 08, r enderi ng the J une 3, 20 11 A p p ea l un tim ely .”N o. 11

- 2261 9 It is h ar d to kn ow w h at t o m ak e o f th is a rg u m en t. It i s t rue that j ud gm ent in the und er l yi ng ca se w as enter ed i n 200 8, but the di st ri ct c ourthad not yet re cei ved the att or neys’ peti tion s fo r fees . The di str i ct cour t r ule d on the fee m oti ons on Decem ber13 , 20 10. E l u s t a th e n fi l e d a mo t i o n t o d i r e c tp a y me n to n D e c e mber23 , 20 10, wh i ch the dist ri ct courtdeni ed on M ay 4, 2011
. El usta next ti m el y fi l ed a noti ce ofappeal, o n J une 2, 2 0 1 1
. S mi th a nd Ge ns o n r e a d B ud inic h, 486 U .S. a t 19 9- 200, as supporting the ar gum ent that the J une 201 1 appeal was unti m el y b ecause El usta shoul d have appeal ed i n 200 8. But Budi ni ch m er el y ho l ds that a pl aint i ffm ay ap pea l a j udg m en t o n the mer i ts whenthe m er i ts ar e deci ded , ev en tho ugh l ate r proce edi ngs m ay s t i ll tak e p lac e t o d et er m in e fe es . Budi ni ch h a s n o th i ng to sayabo ut thi s case: El usta coul d obvi ousl y no t appeal the deni alo fa m oti on t o dir ect paym ent o ffees bef or e the fe es had even b een s ought orawarded. S m i th and G enso n’s a rgum ent o ther w i se i s i tse l ffri vol ous, and w e there f or e decl i ne the i r re quest forsa ncti ons. * * * W e A F F I RM th e dec i si o n o fthe d ist r i ctc o ur t den y i ng Elusta’ s m oti on t o dir ect paym ent o fthe fee aw ar ds, a nd D EN Y Sm i th and Genson’ s m oti on f orsa ncti ons.

9- 4- 12