Weeks v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 187

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/9/2018. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

TREVOR WEEKS,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1641 AWI JLT
Plaintiff
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

(Doc. No. 185)
Defendant

14
15
16

On March 8, 2018, the Court denied a motion by Weeks’s counsel Kay Parker for an order

17

appointing a receiver or for an order requiring deposit of funds. See Doc. No. 184. Parker

18

requested that the Court issue an order that Union Pacific pay funds that are designated by a

19

settlement agreement as attorneys’ fees into the Court’s registry so that a dispute over fees

20

between Weeks’s current and former counsel can be resolved by the Court. See id. The Court

21

denied the motion because: (1) the motion was unsupported by citation to any authority; (2) Mr.

22

Mullanax, who apparently would receive the funds, had requested Court involvement and

23

recognized the various claims made by former attorneys to the funds; (3) there was no indication

24

that any funds would be imminently distributed; (4) an assertion that multiple lawsuits would be

25

faced by the parties was not explained; and (5) as explained in a previous order, the Court was

26

disinclined to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over this one-sided fee dispute.

27

Also on March 8, 2018, Parker filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying a

28

receiver/deposit. See Doc. No. 186. Parker declares that Union Pacific’s senior counsel, Kathy

1

Hughes, informed her that a Settlement and Release Agreement is out for execution by the parties,

2

Mr. Mullanax has the Agreement, and it is anticipated that a final resolution will be reported

3

shortly. See id. Parker states that Hughes believes that the attorneys’ fees should be deposited

4

with the Court because that course “makes sense” under the circumstances.1 See id.

5

The Court gave five reasons why it was denying the request for receiver/deposit. At best,

6

the motion for reconsideration addresses one reason. However, simply because a draft agreement

7

is out for signature does not mean that a payment of attorneys’ fees will immediately occur.

8

Moreover, even if payment of funds was imminent and near, the other reasons stated in the

9

Court’s order remain valid, and the motion for reconsideration does not address those other

10

reasons.2 In particular, the failure to address the Court’s disinclination to exercise ancillary

11

jurisdiction over this vexatious one-sided fee dispute is not addressed, and that is a significant

12

consideration. Cf. Moore v. Telfon Communications Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 967 (9th Cir. 1978).

13

Therefore, the motion for reconsideration will be denied.

14
15

ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is

16
17

DENIED.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 9, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

It is not clear what is meant by the “circumstances” of this case. While there is a dispute between Weeks’s counsel
as to fees, the full extent of that dispute and the nature of any negotiations between counsel is unknown. Further, the
Court notes that there is no explanation of what Mr. Mullanax would do or has threatened to do with the funds, rather
there is and only has ever been a vague and unarticulated fear that Mr. Mullanax would do something improper,
illegal, or unethical. Furthermore, even if Mr. Mullanax received the attorneys’ fees funds, it is unclear how that
would extinguish or impair the enforceability of any valid liens or other claims by any counsel that may exist.
2

The Court again notes an absence of authority cited in the motion for reconsideration.

2