Opinion ID: 2998862
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Disbursement to Mr. Biasiello

Text: As for subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Biasiello’s claim, the magistrate judge noted that a federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over a non-diverse attorney’s claim for fees in a diversity action if the attorney asserts a lien on a fund, which is within the district court’s jurisdiction. See Clarion Corp., 464 F.2d at 445. Of course, Mr. Biasiello’s claim is based on state law, and jurisdiction over the dispute might be lacking if the court had relinquished jurisdiction over the fund and the underlying case. See Hill v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 405 F.3d 572, 577 (7th Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, since Mr. Biasiello’s lien arose from services provided exclusively in the underlying litigation, supplemental jurisdiction was proper over the lien. See Abbott Labs. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 290 F.3d 854, 858 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Alderman v. Pan Am World Airways, 169 F.3d 99, 102 (2d Cir. 1999); Kalyawongsa v. Moffett, 105 F.3d 283, 286–288 (6th Cir. 1997).