Government Employees Insurance Co. et al v. Five Boro Psychological Services, PC et al

Filing 218

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons stated in the attached Order, the court declines to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the parties' fee dispute. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 3/24/2016. (Gong, LiJia)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------- X
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO.,
GEICO INDEMNITY CO., GEICO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, and GEICO CASUALTY
CO.,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

12-CV-2448 (KAM)(VMS)

-againstVLADIMIR GRINBERG, PHD MICKAELLE
DOUGHERTY, PHD ERNEST BONAPARTE, and
OLGA GRINBERG,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO
Indemnity Co., GEICO General Insurance Company, and GEICO
Casualty Co. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action
on May 15, 2012, alleging that defendants violated of various
federal and state laws, including the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and New York
State common law fraud and unjust enrichment.

(ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiffs have settled or dismissed claims against all
defendants.

Currently pending before the court is a dispute

over attorney’s fees between now pro se defendant Vladimir
Grinberg (“Mr. Grinberg”) and his former attorney, Norman Pattis
(“Mr. Pattis”) (the “parties”).

(ECF No. 189.)

On March 2, 2016, Judge Scanlon issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the court1 decline to
exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the parties’ fee dispute.
(ECF No. 217.)

The R&R notified the parties that any objections

must be filed by March 16, 2016, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
11.)

(R&R at

Judge Scanlon noted that a copy of the R&R was served upon

Mr. Grinberg via United States mail on March 2, 2016.

(Id.)

The statutory period for filing objections has now expired, and
no objections to Judge Scanlon’s R&R have been filed.
A district court reviews those portions of a Report
and Recommendation to which a party has timely objected under a
de novo standard of review and “may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations . . .”
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

28

However, where no objections to the

Report and Recommendation have been filed, the district court
“need only satisfy itself that that there is no clear error on
the face of the record.”

Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d

606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.
Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)).

The court has nonetheless

conducted a de novo review of Judge Scanlon’s Report and
Recommendation.

1

This case was reassigned to Judge Matsumoto from Judge Gleeson on March 10,
2016.

2

Upon de novo review, the court adopts Judge Scanlon’s
cogent and thorough analysis and recommendations, and hereby
affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety
as the opinion of the court.

“It is well settled that a federal

court may, in its discretion, exercise ancillary jurisdiction to
hear fee disputes . . . between litigants and their attorneys
when the dispute relates to the main action.”

Levitt v. Brooks,

669 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Chesley v. Union
Carbide Corp., 927 F.2d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 1991)).

“[S]everal non-

exhaustive factors [that] can weigh in favor of exercising
ancillary jurisdiction” over a fee dispute include “(1)
familiarity with the subject matter of the suit, especially with
the amount and quality of work performed by the attorneys; (2) a
court’s responsibility to protect officers of the court in such
matters as fee disputes; (3) the convenience of the Parties; and
(4) judicial economy.”

Id. at 104.

As Judge Scanlon discusses in greater detail in her
Report and Recommendation, this court is largely unfamiliar with
the subject matter of Mr. Grinberg’s criminal prosecution in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Weighing the second factor, Mr. Pattis asks the court not

to retain jurisdiction over the fee dispute, thus the interests
of the attorney-officer of the court weighs against ancillary
jurisdiction.

The court also finds that the third and fourth

3

factors—convenience of the parties and judicial economy—do not
weigh in favor of, or against, ancillary jurisdiction.
Consequently, the court declines to exercise ancillary
jurisdiction over the parties’ fee dispute.

The court notes

that Judge Scanlon’s R&R at footnote five advises the parties of
a New York State court system fee dispute resolution program.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to
close this case.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 24, 2016
Brooklyn, New York

_______ ___/s/
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge

4