Stratos v. AIG Prop. Cas. Co.
| Docket Number | 21-cv-23018-KING/DAMIAN |
| Decision Date | 02 August 2023 |
| Parties | KIMARIE STRATOS, Plaintiff, v. AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Daniels Law Group PLLC's (“Daniels Law”) Motion to Adjudicate and Enforce its Charging Lien and Retaining Lien [ECF No 34], filed January 6, 2023 (the “Motion”).[1]
THE COURT has considered the Motion, the Response and Reply thereto [ECF Nos. 40, 47], all pertinent portions of the record, and the relevant legal authorities and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. In the Motion, Daniels Law requests an order finding its charging and retaining liens valid, perfected, and enforceable, and finding that Plaintiff is required to pay Daniels Law's attorneys' fees and costs. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the charging lien is valid and enforceable, but the Court cannot enforce the retaining lien. The Court also finds that Daniels Law is entitled to payment of its attorneys' fees and costs. Therefore, the Motion is granted in part.
Plaintiff, Kimarie Stratos (“Plaintiff” or “Stratos”), initiated this action against Defendant, AIG Property Casualty Company (“Defendant” or “AIG”), on June 3, 2021, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, seeking damages for breach of an insurance policy for the alleged failure to pay for losses sustained to her property. [ECF No. 1]. AIG removed the action to this Court on August 19, 2021. Id. Stratos filed two related lawsuits: one against AIG that remains pending in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court (No. 2021-013011-CA-01, Stratos v. AIG Property Casualty Co.); and another against Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, that was removed to this Court on August 27, 2021 (No. 21-cv-61817-JLK, Stratos v. Lexington Insurance Co. (the “Lexington Lawsuit”)). See ECF No. 7.
On March 1, 2021, Stratos retained Daniels Law to represent her in connection with the underlying lawsuit and related claims described above. On that same date, Stratos signed an agreement with Daniels Law titled “Contingent Fee Agreement - First Party Property Claims” (the “Retainer Agreement”). [ECF No. 34-1 at 1]. The Retainer Agreement provides, in relevant part:
Id. (emphasis in original). Daniels Law represented Stratos in this and the related actions from that time until October 7, 2022, when, as discussed below, Stratos terminated Daniels Law and subsequently retained new counsel. [ECF No. 34 (“Mot.”) at ¶ 7].
On May 4, 2022, while Daniels Law was still actively representing Stratos, Stratos, AIG, and Lexington (who is represented by the same counsel as AIG), and their counsel attended a mediation where the parties reached a global settlement of all three cases and agreed to certain terms regarding payment of the settlement amount. [ECF No. 27, at ¶¶ 25]. Thereafter, on May 7, 2022, the mediator filed a Report indicating the parties had reached an agreement and were preparing settlement documents. [ECF No. 20]. Two days later, on May 9, 2022, before the parties executed a settlement agreement or filed stipulations for dismissal, the Court entered a “Final Order of Dismissal,” dismissing the instant case and expressly stating: “The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement.”[2][ECF No. 21].
Pursuant to the terms agreed upon at mediation, counsel for AIG and Lexington sent a proposed settlement and release agreement (“release agreement”) and tendered the agreed upon settlement amount to Daniels Law. [ECF No. 27, at ¶ 6]. After the proposed release agreement and funds were received by Daniels Law, on June 8, 2022, Daniels Law forwarded the proposed release agreement to Stratos for signature. Id.; Reply [ECF No. 47] at 8 and Exhibit A [ECF No. 47-1]. The proposed release agreement indicated the total settlement amount agreed at mediation and indicated that a portion of that amount ($81,000) would be paid to Daniels Law for attorneys' fees and costs. Id.
In late June, Stratos informed Daniels Law that she felt the fees portion of the settlement amount was excessive and requested Daniels Law reduce the amount. See ECF No. 40-1 (Sealed Stratos Declaration) at ¶ 9. According to Stratos, the proposed release indicated a fees and costs amount of $81,000 to be paid to Daniels Law, and, after she initially requested they reduce that amount, Daniels Law agreed to reduce the fees and costs amount to $60,000 for all three actions. Id. Daniels Law thereafter provided itemized billing statements to Stratos, upon her request, which reflected fees totaling $21,636.39, $26,258.00, and $24,829.14 for the three actions (a total of $72,723.53). Id.
Over the next three months, Daniels Law attempted to get a signed copy of the release agreement that had been provided by Defendants back from Stratos to no avail. Stratos continued to challenge the fees amount and other details and otherwise refused to sign the release agreement, until September 22, 2022, when Stratos sent Daniels Law a signed release agreement that Stratos had unilaterally modified without conferral or agreement from Defendants or Daniels Law. See Reply at 8.
On October 7, 2022, Stratos terminated Daniels Law as her counsel, following which Daniels Law returned the settlement checks to AIG's counsel [ECF No. 27, at ¶ 12], filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Stratos [ECF No. 24], and filed Notices of Charging and Retaining Liens in each of the three matters [ECF Nos. 22 and 23]. Ultimately, everyone found themselves back before this Court with no signed settlement and release agreement, no funds having been distributed, and no agreement as to the amount of fees owed to Daniels Law.
On December 5, 2022, AIG filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement or in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to Deposit Funds into Court Registry, seeking an order enforcing the terms of the parties' agreement reached at mediation, compelling Stratos to execute the proposed release agreement and accept payment of the settlement amount from AIG and Lexington,[3]and seeking attorney's fees. [ECF No. 27]. AIG and Lexington also requested that, in the event the issues between Stratos and Daniels Law regarding attorney's fees could not be resolved, they be permitted to deposit the settlement funds in the Court's registry pending resolution of those issues. Id.
Stratos responded to AIG's Motion through newly retained counsel and argued, inter alia, that the settlement did not need to be enforced because everyone agrees on its material terms and that this Court does not have jurisdiction to enforce the release agreement because the case was dismissed by way of the Court's May 9, 2022, Final Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 21). [ECF No. 40]. Daniels Law, through counsel, also responded to AIG's Motion and argued, inter alia, that it should not be compelled to make any distributions or to hold any funds in its trust account since it is no longer counsel in this case. [ECF No. 33].
On January 23, 2023, the undersigned held a hearing on AIG's and Lexington's Motions in the two related federal cases. Counsel for AIG and Lexington, Daniels Law, and Stratos appeared, as well as Stratos herself. At the hearing, all counsel agreed that there is no dispute regarding the overall settlement amount to be paid by AIG and Lexington and that the settlement amount is not affected by how much is ultimately owed or paid to Daniels Law. All counsel also agreed that if the amount in dispute over Daniels Law's fees is retained in an attorney trust account, the remaining portion of the settlement amount may be paid to Stratos to distribute among the remaining payees. Thus, based largely on the agreement of counsel on behalf of all parties and non-parties affected by the pending settlement, the Court granted AIG and Lexington's Motions to Enforce the Settlement Agreement to the extent AIG and...
To continue reading
Request your trial