Direct Benefits, LLC, et al v. TAC Financial Inc., et al.

Filing 297

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 278 Expedited Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher on 10/13/2021. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 10/13/21)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
410 962-7780
[e-mail]

October 13, 2021

LETTER ORDER
RE: Direct Benefits, LLC, et al v. TAC Financial Inc., et al.
Civil Case No. SAG-13-1185
Dear Counsel and Mr. Jiranek:
This Court is in receipt of the Expedited Motion to Intervene filed by Andrew L. Jiranek,
Esq., ECF 278, the oppositions filed by Plaintiffs, ECF 283, and Defendant, ECF 287, and the
replies filed by Mr. Jiranek, ECF 288, ECF 295. No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D.
Md. 2021). For the reasons described herein, Mr. Jiranek’s Motion is denied.
Mr. Jiranek represented Plaintiffs in connection with this case and certain related litigation,
beginning in or about 2013. His representation ended in 2018, but earlier this year, a jury returned
a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Andrew Gellene on his Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law
(“MWPCL”) claims, in the amount of $120,387.14. Andrew Gellene therefore has the statutory
right to seek attorneys’ fees and costs he incurred with respect to the wage claims as to which he
prevailed. Plaintiffs’ remaining claims were resolved in Defendant’s favor, meaning that there is
no entitlement to fees as to any of those claims.
The relationship between Plaintiffs and their former attorney, Mr. Jiranek, is not presently
a good one. In fact, Mr. Jiranek has a pending case in state court against Plaintiffs to collect fees
for the legal work he performed on their behalf. Accordingly, Mr. Jiranek seeks to intervene in
the instant action for purposes of pressing his claims for fees and costs he believes he should be
entitled to recover.
This Court, however, need not and will not embroil itself in the contractual disputes
amongst Plaintiffs and their present and former counsel. The MWPCL provides for the award of
“reasonable counsel fees and other costs” to the “employee” whose statutory rights were
infringed. Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. 3-507.2. In this case, that is Andrew Gellene. 1 There is no
statutory provision affording counsel (or former counsel) an independent right to seek an award of
1

While Mr. Jiranek expresses concern that Andrew Gellene and his current attorney will not seek to recover
fees for the hours he billed in the instant case, such action would contravene Andrew Gellene’s own
financial interests. He has every reason to maximize his fee recovery in light of his potential liability in the
state court litigation for fees allegedly owed to Mr. Jiranek.

Direct Benefits, LLC, et al v. TAC Financial Inc., et al.
Civil No. SAG-13-1185
October 13, 2021
Page 2
fees from the defendant in the event of a plaintiff’s verdict.
Accordingly, Mr. Jiranek’s motion to intervene, ECF 278, is denied. Mr. Jiranek may
continue to seek the fees he claims he is owed by Plaintiffs in other, more appropriate venues; his
ability to do so will be unaffected by any award this Court may make to Andrew Gellene. This
conclusion is not altered by Mr. Jiranek’s assertion that because he “was to be paid on a time and
materials basis out of the Recovery. . . [he] stands to gain or lose based on the Court’s award of
fees.” ECF 295 at 4. Assuming this is the case, Mr. Jiranek’s alleged interest is in some portion
of whatever recovery this Court may award; it is not, as Mr. Jiranek appears to suggest, a right to
dictate the amount of Andrew Gellene’s application for fees to this Court. 2
Andrew Gellene, through his counsel of record, will be permitted to file his petition for
attorneys’ fees on or before November 3, 2021. Defendant TAC Financial will be allowed to
respond on or before November 17, 2021, and Andrew Gellene will be afforded until November
24, 2021 to file any reply. Upon this Court’s review of those filings, it will determine the
appropriate fees and costs, if any, to be awarded to Andrew Gellene.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it is an Order of Court and will be docketed as
such.

Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States District Judge

2

This Court is similarly unpersuaded by Mr. Jiranek’s contention that his interests are not adequately
represented because some of his fees and costs may not be included in Andrew Gellene’s application. ECF
295 at 8 (“Plaintiffs’ current counsel simply does not want to include [Mr.] Jiranek’s fees and costs in an
application . . . [Mr.] Jiranek is seeking to intervene in this case . . . to make sure that the reasonableness of
[Mr.] Jiranek’s fees and costs is considered by the Court.”). ECF 295 at 8. Andrew Gellene’s current
counsel has a fiduciary and ethical duty to maximize his client’s fee recovery. This goal is wholly aligned
with Mr. Jiranek’s. Strategic choices as to how to achieve this end—including decisions regarding the fees
and costs to be included in an application to this Court—are within the discretion of Andrew Gellene’s
current counsel.