Law Offices of Aleksandr Vakarev v. Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Vakarevs motion #17 to remand this case back to the Supreme Court, Kings County is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this case back to Supreme Court, Kings County # 503661/2021. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 8/1/2022. (Innelli, Michael)
Case 1:21-cv-02942-FB-JRC Document 27 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 628
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LAW OFFICES OF ALEKSANDR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 1:21-cv-02942-FB-JRC
CUNEO, GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP and
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.,
For the Defendants:
RALPH MICHAEL SMITH
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
For the Plaintiff:
DAVID KAY BOWLES
Bowles & Johnson PLLC
14 Wall St., 20th Fl.
New York, NY 10005
HELENE E. BLANK
Blank & Star, PLLC
387 New Lot Ave.
Brooklyn, NY 11207
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
The plaintiff in this case, the Law Offices of Aleksandr Vakarev
(“Vakarev”),1 initiated this action in the Supreme Court of New York, King’s
While the plaintiff in this case is the Law Offices of Aleksandr Vakarev, the
Court refers to the plaintiff as the individual “Vakarev” throughout this order for
the avoidance of confusion.
Case 1:21-cv-02942-FB-JRC Document 27 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 629
County (“State Court”) to recover legal fees to which he believes he is entitled.
Vakarev was counsel for Abeer Alrabahi (Alrabahi) in a lawsuit resulting from a
tragic accident that led to the death of her daughter. Vakarev claims to have spent
hundreds of hours working on Alrabahi’s case and obtained a settlement offer of
$1,500,000.00 on her behalf. Alrabahi declined the offer. Several months later,
Vakarev was notified that Alrabahi was now represented by Defendant Barrett Law
Group, P.A. (“Barrett”) who was working together with Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca
(“Cuneo”) on Alrabahi’s case. Accordingly, Vakarev was discharged as Alrabahi’s
attorney. The next month, Vakarev and Defendants (the “Parties”) entered into a
consent to change attorney and agreement as to the division of legal fees (the
“Agreement”). Shortly thereafter, Defendants achieved a settlement of
$1,900,000.00 on behalf of Alrabahi, which she accepted. Defendants then refused
to pay Vakarev the portion of the attorneys’ fees to which he claims he is entitled,
prompting this action.
Presently before the Court are four motions: (i) Vakarev’s motion to remand
to state court, (ii) the Defendants’ motion to change venue, (iii) the Defendants’
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, (iv) and the Defendants’ motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court first addresses the motion to
remand. For the reasons presented below, the motion to remand is granted and
accordingly, the Court need not address the remaining three motions. See Callen v.
Case 1:21-cv-02942-FB-JRC Document 27 Filed 08/01/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 630
Callen, 827 F. Supp. 2d 214, 215 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (noting that when a court is
presented with competing motions to transfer venue and to remand, it should
consider the remand motion first and turn to the motion to transfer only if it denies
the remand motion).
Vakarev initially filed suit in the State Court and Defendants removed to the
Eastern District of New York on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Now, Vakarev
moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 to remand the action to the Kings County. The
Agreement between the parties contains a forum selection clause naming Supreme
Court, Kings County as the venue for fee disputes arising out of the Agreement.
Vakarev argues that this clause should be enforced. For the reasons that follow, the
In the Second Circuit, forum selection clauses that require actions to be
commenced in state court rather than federal court are enforced. See Karl Koch
Erecting Co. v. New York Convention Ctr. Dev. Corp., 838 F.2d 656, 659 (2d Cir.
1988). Exceptions to this rule include fraud and overreach, or when enforcement
would be unreasonable or unjust. See id.
The forum selection clause in the Agreement states that if the parties “cannot
agree on a division of legal fees between them, the matter shall be promptly
referred to the Supreme Court, Kings County for a resolution.” Pl. Motion to
Remand at Ex. A. Vakarev’s claim seeks payment for a portion of the attorneys'’
Case 1:21-cv-02942-FB-JRC Document 27 Filed 08/01/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 631
fees resulting from Alrabahi’s settlement, and Defendants have refused to pay.
This is clearly a fee dispute covered by the clause.
Defendants argue that enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable and
unjust because of inappropriate actions that Vakarev allegedly took while
representing Alrabahi. While these allegations of professional misconduct are
serious, all but one go to Vakarev’s underlying claim for his portion of attorneys’
fees rather than to the validity of the forum selection clause or the motion to
The one action that Defendants claim Vakarev took that relates to the forum
selection clause is his alleged refusal to share Alrahabi’s case file until Defendants
paid the costs incurred to retain expert witnesses and build the file. However,
Defendants do not allege fraud, but essentially that they were outbargained by
Vakarev and had to give in due to impending time constraints on filing for
Alrabahi. Vakarev had a right to retain the file under New York common law if he
was discharged for cause, though whether he was discharged for cause remains
disputed. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nandi, 258 F. Supp. 2d 309, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
Still, Vakarev points out that Defendants never requested a change in the choice of
forum language when the Agreement was determined. Also, the parties are all law
firms and thus there existed no disparate bargaining power. Therefore, Vakarev’s
bargaining tactics did not rise to the level of coercion or overreach that may
Case 1:21-cv-02942-FB-JRC Document 27 Filed 08/01/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 632
compel a court to waive a forum selection clause. Accordingly, the forum selection
clause is enforced and the motion to remand is granted.
Vakarev also has asked the Court to consider awarding fees and costs related
to the remand motion. When there is no reasonable basis for removal of an action,
the Court may award attorneys’ fees and costs upon remand. See Children's Vill. v.
Greenburgh Eleven Teachers' Union Fed'n of Tchrs., Loc. 1532, 867 F. Supp. 245,
248 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). However, Defendants’ arguments as described above do not
rise to the level of lacking any reasonable basis. Therefore, the Court declines to
award fees and costs associated with this motion.
Vakarev’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED.
_/S/ Frederic Block_______
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
August 1, 2022
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?