Thomas et al v. American Family Insurance Group
ORDER. ORDERED that the Verified Statement of Attorneys' Lein [sic] and Motion for Judgment Thereon 83 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/22/16. (jhawk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02819-PAB-NYW
ANNA THOMAS and
AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP, a/k/a American Family Mutual Insurance
This matter is before the Court on the Verified Statement of Attorneys’ Lein [sic]
and Motion for Judgment Thereon filed by Evan R. Wolfe, P.A. (“Wolfe”) [Docket No.
83]. The Court’s jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The parties filed a Notice of Settlement [Docket No. 75] on April 7, 2016. On
May 9, 2016, Wolfe filed the present motion. Docket No. 83. 1
An attorney’s lien attaches only “to the extent of the attorney’s reasonable fees
remaining due and unpaid.” Gold v. Duncan Ostrander & Dingess, P.C., 143 P.3d
1192, 1193 (Colo. App. 2006). “[T]he burden of proof is upon the attorney who claims a
lien for services to show that he or she comes within” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-5-119. In re
Marriage of Mitchell, 55 P.3d 183, 185 (Colo. App. 2002). T he Court’s role is to
On May 12, 2016, plaintiffs’ counsel, Maceau Law, LLC, filed an objection, but it
was stricken for failing to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1(e) and was not refiled.
Docket Nos. 85, 87.
determine “whether the amount asserted as a lien is proper and what means should be
used for enforcement of the lien.” In re Marriage of Shapard, 129 P.3d 1007, 1009
(Colo. App. 2004) (citing Gee v. Crabtree, 560 P.2d 835, 836 (Colo. 1977)). The Court
cannot determine whether the amount asserted is proper absent an evidentiary basis.
See Davis v. Kutak Rock, LLP, No. 09-cv-02768-REB-MJW, 2012 WL 975836 at *3 (D.
Colo. Mar. 22, 2012) (finding that “[t]he current record does not contain inf ormation
sufficient for the court to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees tied to [the
attorney’s] lien” and ordering the attorney “to file with the court a motion seeking a
specific amount of reasonable attorney fees”). To ensure that attorneys seeking fees
substantiate their requests, the local rules provide that “a motion for attorney fees shall
be supported by affidavit” and “shall include . . . (1) a summary of relevant qualifications
and experience; and (2) a detailed description of the services rendered, the amount of
time spent, the hourly rate charged, and the total amount claimed.” D.C.Colo.LCivR
Wolfe’s motion does not purport to be a notice of attorney lien pursuant to Colo.
Rev. Stat. § 12-5-119. Instead, the motion simply requests the Court enter judgment in
Wolfe’s favor, order that all settlement checks “include the name of Evan R. Wolfe,
P.A.,” and order that a copy of such checks be sent to Wolfe. Docket No. 83 at 1-2;
Docket No. 83-1. The only evidence offered is an attached email. The email appears
to have been sent by plaintiffs’ counsel, Maceau Law, LLC, offering to split its fee with
Wolfe. Docket No. 83-1. Wolfe represents that it performed a “substantial amount of
work . . . representing the Clients in this matter,” but does not provide anything more
specific regarding the services rendered or the attorney’s qualifications. Docket No. 83
at 1. Nor does Wolfe make any specific request for an amount of fees. Id. at 2.
Absent any documentation of Wolfe’s efforts and qualifications as well as a
specific request for fees, the Court is unable to determine “the extent,” if any, “of the
attorney’s reasonable fees remaining due and unpaid.” See Gold, 143 P.3d at 1193;
see also D.C.Colo.LCivR 54.3.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Verified Statement of Attorneys’ Lein [sic]
and Motion for Judgment Thereon [Docket No. 83] is DENIED.
DATED December 22, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
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?