Opinion ID: 2814903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Doyle argues, unpersuasively, that the district court lacked jurisdiction because “[WCQP] was not a party to the underlying lawsuit” and it withdrew 5 Case: 14-60567 Document: 00513105668 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 No. 14-60567 from representing the plaintiffs. Doyle’s argument does not cite the relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which provides: in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This supplemental jurisdiction has a long history in this circuit. In 1945 we held that, if an attorney does not receive fair compensation following substitution, then “the court may preserve any liens the law may give the attorney on papers in his hands and the proceeds of the suit.” Doggett v. Deauville Corp., 148 F.2d 881, 883 (5th Cir. 1945); see also Broughten v. Voss, 634 F.2d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 1981) (stating “[i]f, upon withdrawal, counsel is unable to secure payment for his services, the court may assume jurisdiction over a claim based on a charging lien over the proceeds of the lawsuit.”). Moreover, Doyle’s argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction over this dispute because fee disputes are the exclusive purview of a jury is waived as a result of not being raised below. 3 The district court had jurisdiction over WCQP’s motion.