Chinelo Oparaeche, et al v. Ralph Reddy, et al
Filing
Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Richard D. Cudahy, Circuit Judge; Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge and Ilana Diamond Rovner, Circuit Judge. [6547522-1] [6547522] [13-1572]
Case: 13-1572
Document: 26
Filed: 01/24/2014
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Pages: 3
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 17, 2014*
Decided January 24, 2014
No. 13-‐‑1572
Before
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
CHINELO O. OPARAECHE,
Plaintiff-‐‑Appellee,
v.
RALPH REDDY and JOHN VERIHA TRUCKING, INC.,
Defendants-‐‑Appellees.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 12 C 1586
Sidney I. Schenkier, Magis-‐‑
trate Judge.
Appeal of ’LANRE O. AMU
Order
Attorney ’Lanre Amu represented Chinelo Oparaeche in making a claim arising
from a collision between a semi-‐‑tractor trailer and Oparaeche’s car. Oparaeche fired
Amu after four months and hired new lawyers, who sued and recovered $262,500 by
* Appellees elected not to file briefs. After examining appellant’s brief and the record, we have con-‐‑
cluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
Case: 13-1572
No. 13-‐‑1572
Document: 26
Filed: 01/24/2014
Pages: 3
Page 2
settlement. Then Amu asked the magistrate judge, who had presided by mutual con-‐‑
sent, to award him $52,500 (or at least $36,500) as a matter of quantum meruit. The mag-‐‑
istrate judge thought $7,000 more appropriate, and Amu appeals. He has recently been
suspended from practice by Illinois, but as far as we know this does not affect his enti-‐‑
tlement to collect fees already earned.
Subject-‐‑matter jurisdiction is questionable. Amu assumed that the federal courts’
supplemental jurisdiction covers all disputes about attorneys’ fees, even when the legal
work for which the fees are claimed predated the commencement of litigation. The
magistrate judge took the same view, relying on decisions mentioned below. But Kokko-‐‑
nen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), holds that disputes re-‐‑
lated to federal litigation do not automatically come within the supplemental jurisdic-‐‑
tion. Unless a dispute is part of the same case or controversy, see 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), it
needs an independent basis of jurisdiction. Oparaeche, Amu, and Oparaeche’s other at-‐‑
torneys all are citizens of Illinois; the diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §1332, could not
support this litigation. And Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059 (2013), adds that a dispute
about legal malpractice during federal litigation is not the same case or controversy as
the underlying litigation, does not arise under federal law, and therefore not only needs
an independent basis of federal jurisdiction but also is not within the federal circuit’s
exclusive jurisdiction when the underlying litigation is a patent suit.
A number of decisions by this circuit hold that federal courts possess supplemental
jurisdiction over attorneys’ fee disputes related to litigation within their jurisdictions.
See, e.g., Elusta v. Chicago, 696 F.3d 690, 694 (7th Cir. 2012); Rissman v. Rissman, 229 F.3d
586, 587–88 (7th Cir. 2000); see generally Abbott Laboratories v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 290
F.3d 854, 858 (7th Cir. 2002). Opinions such as Kokkonen and Gunn suggest that our cir-‐‑
cuit’s approach may need reconsideration. But this is not the occasion to revisit the sub-‐‑
ject. Amu has not addressed it, and no other litigant has filed an appellate brief. Pru-‐‑
dence implies waiting until we can be sure that all material arguments have been con-‐‑
sidered. We shall apply the law of the circuit as it stands.
Amu’s appellate brief contains offensive, ad hominem comments* and is not worthy
of a member of the bar. The filing of similar documents is why Amu was suspended
* For example, the brief’s summary of argument begins: “The only basis for Mark Solmor [one of the
lawyers who replaced Amu] getting the case is that he referred plaintiff Chinelo Oparaeche to loan sharks
charging approximately 70% interest loan, and Amu could not do that. Magistrate [Judge] Schenkier and
Mark Solmor who are Jews are aware of the same prohibition had plaintiff been a Jew like them.” The
brief also asserts that the award is “unfair to Amu but generous to Solmor—a fellow Jew.”
Case: 13-1572
No. 13-‐‑1572
Document: 26
Filed: 01/24/2014
Pages: 3
Page 3
from practice in Illinois (and removed from this court’s bar on December 6, 2013). We
see no need to dignify his arguments with extended discussion. For the reasons given
by the magistrate judge, the decision under review is sound.
AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?