Silcox v. United Trucking Service, Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 September 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-5033,81-5033
• Citation: 687 F.2d 848
• Parties: Irene Hurst McMahan SILCOX, Individually and as Administratrix of the estate of James Silcox, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED TRUCKING SERVICE, INCORP., and Charles E. Lee, Defendants, v. Daniel J. TRIBELL, Attorney-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 848

687 F.2d 848

Irene Hurst McMahan SILCOX, Individually and as Administratrix of the estate of James Silcox, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED TRUCKING SERVICE, INCORP., and Charles E. Lee, Defendants, v. Daniel J. TRIBELL, Attorney-Appellant.

No. 81-5033.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued April 15, 1982.

Decided Sept. 2, 1982.

Daniel J. Tribell, pro se.

William A. Watson, Middlesboro, Ky., Ervin L. Ball, Jr., Lentz, Ball & Kelley, P.A., Asheville, N. C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, BROWN ^* and TUTTLE, ^** Senior Circuit Judges.

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

This case presents the question of whether it was proper for the district court to issue an injunction restraining the appellant from proceeding further in a state court with his claim for an attorney fee, when that issue had been decided adversely to him in the district court. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the district court granting the injunction.

I

The original action in this controversy was a suit for wrongful death filed in the United States District Court by the plaintiff-appellee, Mrs. Irene Silcox, against defendants, Charles Lee and his employer, United Trucking Service, Inc. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. The plaintiff's decedent, James Silcox, was killed in a collision with defendant Lee. The parties eventually agreed to a settlement of $101,000, which was paid into the district court in anticipation of the dispute as to attorney's fee at issue on this appeal. The original defendants no longer assert any interest in the settlement funds.

The present dispute is between Mrs. Silcox and the appellant, Daniel J. Tribell, her former attorney. Appellant claims an interest in the settlement funds, based on service rendered to Mrs. Silcox as her original attorney in the underlying claim against the defendants.

The defendants moved to have the funds paid into the court on March 30, 1978. Appellant Tribell filed a "Notice of Lien for Attorney's Fee" in the district court on April 3, 1978, asserting that he was entitled to one-third of the funds as his attorney's fee. District Judge Eugene E. Siler, Jr. granted the motion of defendants for payment of the funds into the registry of the court and set a date for a hearing. On May 17, 1978, the defendants were dismissed with prejudice from the action and the court held a hearing on the attorney's fee issue. Appellant Tribell appeared, argued his case and cross-examined a witness. He also filed a motion requesting that the district court action be stayed pending the outcome of a state court suit for attorney's fee filed on that same day, May 17, 1978, in the Circuit Court of Bell County, Kentucky. The district court hearing was continued by Judge Siler, pending his resolution of the question of the ancillary jurisdiction of the court to hear the dispute.

On August 24, 1979, Judge Siler issued a memorandum opinion holding that the district court had ancillary jurisdiction over the attorney's fee dispute, and that appellant was not entitled to recover the fee claimed by him because he had been suspended from practice for nonpayment of dues by the Kentucky Bar Association at the time he had rendered the services for which he sought compensation. Appellant never appealed from this decision.

Appellant's action in the state court had proceeded in the meantime. On July 6, 1978, the state court overruled Mrs. Silcox's motion to dismiss, but stayed further proceedings pending resolution of the issues by Judge Siler. After the decision of the district court, the state court overruled another motion by Mrs. Silcox to dismiss, in which she asserted that the district court judgment precluded the state court from proceeding with the attorney's fee litigation on principles of res judicata. The state court determined that it had jurisdiction over the attorney's fee question and that Tribell would be entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis.

Appellee Silcox then filed a motion in the district court to enjoin appellant Tribell from proceeding further with the state court action. The district court determined on December 18, 1980, that it had the authority to issue the injunction under the "relitigation exception" of the Federal Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The court then enjoined Tribell from taking any further actions with reference to any state court lawsuit instituted to collect an attorney's fee for services rendered to Mrs. Silcox. From this decision Tribell appeals.

II

An examination of the record and the pleadings before the state court reveal the following undisputed or admitted facts regarding appellant Tribell's alleged representation of the Silcox estate.

Appellant Tribell originally was retained as counsel for the estate of the decedent and through his efforts Mrs. Silcox was appointed administratrix. Tribell also obtained the agreement of the underlying defendants to a $101,000 settlement. Mrs. Silcox, however, was not satisfied with this settlement and shortly thereafter discharged Tribell and retained her present counsel.

Upon his discharge, Tribell undertook to have Mrs. Silcox removed as administratrix of the estate of decedent, and have the parents of decedent appointed in her place. Pursuant to these efforts, Tribell adduced evidence undertaking to establish that Mrs. Silcox and the decedent had not participated in a valid ceremonial marriage. Meanwhile, Mrs. Silcox and the defendants ultimately agreed to a $101,000 settlement, the same amount for which Tribell originally had negotiated. Mrs. Silcox contends that this settlement was lower than it otherwise might have been, due to her weakened bargaining position as administratrix of the estate brought about by her former counsel's attempts to remove her. Tribell notified the parties of his intent to assert a one-third interest in the funds as a contingent fee for his having originally procured the settlement.

It is also undisputed that at the time Tribell served as attorney for Silcox, from May 1975 until January 1976, he was not licensed to practice law, having been suspended by the Kentucky Bar Association for nonpayment of dues in June 1970. He was not reinstated until November 24, 1976.

III

This court has recognized that the power of a district court to enjoin a litigant from proceeding in a state action, although it should be exercised sparingly, exists under the provisions of the Federal Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Lamb Enterprises, Inc. v. Kiroff, 549 F.2d 1052, 1060-62 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 968, 97 S.Ct. 2926, 53 L.Ed.2d 1064 (1977). The power "is based upon principles of equity deeply rooted in our system of jurisprudence," Lamb Enterprises, supra, 549 F.2d at 1060, and its exercise is permitted under the "relitigation exception" of the Anti-Injunction Act, which provides that "(a) court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except ... to protect or effectuate its judgments." 28 U.S.C. § 2283.

This court has interpreted the above exception to mean that "federal courts may enjoin the relitigation in state court of issues that federal courts have fully and finally adjudicated." Lamb Enterprises, supra, 549 F.2d at 1061, citing International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Nix, 512 F.2d 125, 129-30 (5th Cir. 1975).

In Lamb Enterprises, supra, we found that the "relitigation exception" to § 2283 did not apply, because there was an unresolved question as to whether there had been a full and final adjudication of all the questions of law and fact in the prior federal action. 549 F.2d at 1061. We emphasized that principles of equity, comity and federalism oblige federal courts to act with great restraint, even where the power to grant an injunction has been found to lie within one of the exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act. Lamb Enterprises, supra, 549 F.2d at 1062, citing Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 32 L.Ed.2d 705 (1972).

In issuing the injunction on the present case, District Judge Siler expressed both the need for restraint and his reason for finding the relitigation exception applicable:

This Court is nevertheless very reluctant to issue such injunctions as a general rule, for reasons of comity.... If there is any doubt as to the propriety of the injunction, it should not be issued....

However, in this case this matter has already been litigated in this Court in proceedings in which Mr. Tribell had an opportunity to participate and did in fact participate. If Mr. Tribell believed this Court's earlier decision was erroneous, he was free to move this Court to reconsider or appeal to the Sixth Circuit. Having failed to do so, he cannot now appeal to the Bell Circuit Court. Under these circumstances, there can be no doubt as to the propriety of forbidding Mr. Tribell from proceeding with his state court action.

In making this ruling, this Court has the utmost respect for the Bell Circuit Court and Judge Farmer Helton, an outstanding jurist and a fine person and personal friend of the undersigned judge. On the other hand, this Court cannot permit a litigant to drag other litigants to another Court in hopes of finding relief that is denied here. (Citations omitted.). Memorandum Opinion, pp. 3-4.

We first must decide whether the issue of entitlement of appellant to an attorney's fee was fully and fairly litigated in the district court. Appellant vigorously asserts on this appeal that he did not participate willingly in the district court proceeding, and that he was "placed in this situation by events not of his making." The record establishes, however, that appellant had full notice of the proceeding and an opportunity to present in the district court all his claims to an attorney's fee. The defendants originally moved to have the settlement funds paid into the registry of the district court because appellant had...