Woods v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 75

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RESOLVE ATTORNEY LIEN (Doc. 69). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHANNON WOODS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 15-10324

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, RYAN JOHNSON,
and MONICA BURTON,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RESOLVE ATTORNEY LIEN (Doc. 69)1
I.
This is an employment discrimination case under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e and
42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1983. Plaintiff Shannon Woods (Woods) sued the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) and two of its employees, Ryan Johnson (Johnson)
and Monica Burton (now Monica Swain), alleging she was subjected to sex
discrimination and a hostile work environment. Woods filed two complaints based on
the alleged discrimination, one in state and one in federal court. The only difference
between the federal and state complaints is that Woods is suing the MDOC as well as
Johnson and Swain in federal court while the MDOC is the sole defendant in state court.
The state court case was filed on September 18, 2014. The federal case was filed later,
on January 24, 2015.
1

Although originally scheduled for hearing, the Court deems this matter
appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Mich.
LR 7.1(f)(2).

When the federal case was filed, Woods was represented by the Rasor Law Firm
(Rasor) and attorney Jonathan Marko (Marko). On December 15, 2015, about 11
months after the federal case was filed, Marko left Rasor and began working with
attorney Kevin Ernst, forming Ernst & Marko Law, PLC (EML). Woods continued
representation with Marko and EML. Rasor then filed an Attorney Lien, claiming a lien
on any monies received by Woods. (Doc. 40).
Before the Court is EML’s Motion to Resolve Attorney Lien, seeking a ruling that
the Rasor lien be dismissed due to fraudulent billing or that it is entitled to no more than
“a fraction” of the loadstar amount. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be
denied. As will be explained, the issue of the Rasor lien is currently pending in state
court. The Court, in the interests of comity at a minimum, simply declines to resolve the
Rasor lien.
II.
A.
Judge Patricia Fresard presided over the state court case. It is undisputed that
the case was litigated vigorously in state court, including an interlocutory appeal by the
MDOC to the court of appeals.
In 2016, while the state court case was pending on appeal, Woods filed a motion
to stay this case pending resolution of the state case. (Doc. 63). The MDOC did not
oppose a stay. (Doc. 64). The Court granted the motion, stayed and administratively
closed the case. (Doc. 65). At the time of the stay, defendants’ motion for summary
judgment was pending. (Doc. 48). The Court terminated the motion in light of the stay.
(Doc. 66).
2

The parties settled both cases in early October of 2018 for $1,100,000.00.
B.
After the settlement, in early 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
federal case based on the settlement agreement. (Doc. 67). The Court then entered a
stipulated order dismissing the case. The dismissal noted that “the Court has yet to rule
on the former attorney Rasor Law Firm’s lien which is pending before this Court.” (Doc.
68).
C.
Rasor and EML agree that the primary litigation was in state court. The work in
federal court paled by comparison. Prior to issuance of the stay, the only motion which
required a ruling by the Court was the MDOC’s motion to disqualify Rasor which the
Court ultimately denied.
III.
Weeks after the case was settled, on October 25, 2018, EML filed a motion to
resolve the Rasor lien in state court before Judge Fresard. Judge Fresard subsequently
recused herself from the attorney fee dispute and the motion was reassigned to Judge
Craig Strong.
EML, upset that the motion was reassigned and with the fact that Judge Strong
has yet to rule on the motion and is not familiar with the underlying dispute, filed the
instant motion which is likely identical to the motion in state court on February 1, 2019 almost 4 months after the motion was filed in state court. Now EML says that this
Court, not the state court, should be the one to adjudicate the attorney fee dispute.

3

IV.
EML’s motion must be denied. First, while EML argues that the Court has
“ancillary jurisdiction” to consider the motion, this argument falls flat in light of the fact
that EML first invoked the jurisdiction of the state court to decide the attorney fee
dispute. Putting aside any other jurisdictional or abstention arguments, at the end of the
day EML wants the Court usurp the state court’s adjudication of the motion simply
because EML is not happy that Judge Fresard recused herself and because Judge
Strong has not moved quickly enough to resolve the motion. There is simply no
authority for the Court to take the action EML desires. Moreover, the state court is well
equipped to handle the attorney fee dispute, including accounting for the limited work
which was done in this case by the Rasor firm before Woods decided to retain Marko
and EML as her counsel.
The motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: 4/5/2019
Detroit, Michigan

4