BoomJ.com et al v. Pursglove

Filing 182

ORDER Granting 160 Motion to Assess Penalty Pursuant to NRS 608.040 and Granting 163 Motion for Attorney Fees. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter JUDGMENT for George Purseglove and against Boomj.com in the amount of $13 ,850.00. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter JUDGMENT for George Purseglove and against Boomj.com in the amount of $32,863.50. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 1/12/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

BOOMJ.COM, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13

Case No. 2:08-CV-00496-KJD-LRL

GEORGE PURSEGLOVE, et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.

15
16

Presently before the Court is Defendant/Counterclaimant George Purseglove’s Motion to

17

Discharge Writ of Garnishment (#174). Hutchison & Steffen (“H&S”) filed a response in opposition

18

(#180) to which Purseglove replied (#181).

19

I. Analysis

20

Hutchison & Steffen’s Writ of Garnishment is based on a judgment for attorney’s fees (#37)

21

entered in this action on February 10, 2009. Hutchison & Steffen filed its motion to withdraw as

22

counsel for George Purseglove on September 28, 2008. It also filed its motion for fees and costs on

23

the same date. The order granting the motion to withdraw was entered on October 28, 2008 (#33).

24

H&S’s motion for fees and costs was unopposed and George Purseglove was unrepresented by

25

counsel when the judgment was granted on February 10, 2009. Purseglove’s present counsel entered

26

his appearance on April 21, 2009.

1

On September 24, 2009, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected the holding and reasoning of the

2

case, Gordon v. Stewart, 324 P.2d 234 (Nev. 1958), relied upon by H&S when it moved for entry of

3

judgment for its attorneys fees and costs. Argentena Consol. Mining Co. v. Jolley Urga Wirth

4

Woodbury & Standish, 216 P.3d 779, 786 (Nev. 2009)(“we reject...Gordon to the extent [that

5

opinion] indicate[s] that the district court has the power to resolve a fee dispute in the underlying

6

action irrespective of whether the attorney sought adjudication of a lien). Instead, Argentena

7

concluded “that in the absence of an enforceable charging lien, a client’s request to extinguish a

8

retaining lien, or the client’s consent to the district court’s adjudication of a retaining lien, the district

9

court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the attorney-client fee dispute[.]” Id. at 788.

10

H&S did not have an enforceable charging lien because there was no judgment or settlement

11

that could be enforced under NRS 18.015 until July 28, 2011. Nor did Purseglove request

12

extinguishment of a retaining lien or consent to the adjudication of a retaining lien. Therefore, the

13

Court was without authority when it entered the Judgment (#37) on February 10, 2009. Since the

14

Court lacked authority, the Judgment (#37) is vacated and the Clerk of the Court will strike it. In the

15

absence of a valid judgment, the Court must grant Purseglove’s motion to discharge the writ of

16

garnishment.1

17

////

18

////

19

////

20

////

21

////

22

////

23

////

24
25
26

1

The Court recognizes that it has authority under NRS 18.015 to adjudicate the rights of attorneys, clients and
other parties and enforce a lien upon motion of an attorney having a lien under this section. Argentena also makes clear
that an attorney may seek adjudication of a fee dispute against a former client in a separate proceeding. Id. at 787.

2

1

II. Conclusion

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment (#37) is VACATED;

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court STRIKE the Judgment (#37);

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant/Counterclaimant George Purseglove’s Motion

5
6

to Discharge Writ of Garnishment (#174) is GRANTED.
DATED this 12TH day of January 2012.

7
8
9
10

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3