Kamel v. Best Buy Co., Inc.

Filing 77

ORDER granting in part 56 Letter Motion to Compel. Defendant's Rule 67 motion is GRANTED in part. Defendant may deposit, pursuant to any instructions by the Clerk of Court, into its registry the amount of fifty-two thousand, twenty-two d ollars and seventy-four cents ($52,022.74 USD), to be held pending the resolution of Mr. Prisco's fees motion and distribution by further order of this Court. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 56 and to mail this order to Plaintiff at the address listed on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on 1/28/2025) (jca) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
WALID KAMEL,
Plaintiff,
-against-

Case No. 23-cv-00033 (JLR)

MICHAEL PRISCO,
Movant,

ORDER

BEST BUY CO., INC.,
Defendant.

JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge:
Defendant Best Buy Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) has moved this Court pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 67 for leave to deposit $250,000 with the Court in satisfaction
of the judgment entered in favor of now-pro se Plaintiff Walid Kamel (“Plaintiff”), in light of a
dispute as to attorneys’ fees between Plaintiff and his former counsel, Michael Prisco, who has
moved this Court to set a charging lien for attorneys’ fees. Dkt. 56; see Dkt. 54 (Prisco motion).
Mr. Prisco requests an order setting a charging lien in the amount of $48,534.26 and
disbursements in the amount of $3,488.48, and directing Defendant to issue a check in the
amount of $52,022.74 to the Law Office of Michael James Prisco PLLC as partial satisfaction of
the judgment. Dkt 54-1 at 7. The Court directed Plaintiff to file any response to these motions
by December 26, 2024. Dkt. 57. The Court subsequently extended the time for Plaintiff to
respond to the motions, see Dkts. 65, 74; and warned Plaintiff that if he failed to respond to the
motions by January 24, 2025, the Court would treat the motions as unopposed, Dkt. 74. On
January 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed an affirmation “in opposition to [the] motion [for] legal fees and
ask[ed] the Court to deny Mr. Prisco’s fee request in total,” Dkt. 75 ¶ 1, but did not oppose Best

Buy’s Rule 67 motion, see generally Dkt. 75. As a consequence, the Court will treat Best Buy’s
motion as unopposed.
Where “any part of the relief sought is a money judgment,” Rule 67 permits a party, “on
notice to every other party and by leave of the court,” to “deposit with the court all or part of the
money or thing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a). This procedure “provides a place of safekeeping for
disputed funds pending the resolution of a legal dispute.” Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v.
ZocDoc, Inc., 909 F.3d 534, 541 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting LTV Corp. v. Gulf States Steel, Inc. of
Ala., 969 F.2d 1050, 1063 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). In light of the dispute between Plaintiff and Mr.
Prisco, the Court will exercise its discretion under Rule 67 to permit Defendant to deposit the
only the disputed amount of the judgment — the $52,022.74 that Mr. Prisco seeks — with the
Court while the dispute between Plaintiff and Mr. Prisco as to the charging lien is resolved. See
True the Vote, Inc. v. IRS, No. 13-cv-00734, 2023 WL 6164045, at *1-2 (D.D.C. Aug. 15, 2023)
(permitting deposit of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Rule 67 pending the court’s resolution of
charging lien disputes); Schreiber v. Friedman, No. 15-cv-06861 (CBA) (JO), 2020 WL
5549082, at *6 n.11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020) (referencing similar order), report and
recommendation adopted in part and rejected in part on other grounds, 2022 WL 669461, at *8
(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2022). The attorneys’ fee dispute is the only dispute pending before this
Court and therefore the Court will not accept deposit of the remainder of the $250,000 that
Defendant seeks to deposit with the Court.
Defendant’s Rule 67 motion is GRANTED in part. Defendant may deposit, pursuant to
any instructions by the Clerk of Court, into its registry the amount of fifty-two thousand, twentytwo dollars and seventy-four cents ($52,022.74 USD), to be held pending the resolution of Mr.
Prisco’s fees motion and distribution by further order of this Court. The Clerk of Court is

2

respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 56 and to mail this order to Plaintiff at the
address listed on the docket.
Dated: January 28, 2025
New York, New York
SO ORDERED

JENNIFER L. ROCHON
United States District Judge

3