Von Zur Muehlen v. St. Regis Apartments, Inc., 4:18 CV 01733 SNLJ
| Decision Date | 17 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:18 CV 01733 SNLJ,4:18 CV 01733 SNLJ |
| Parties | PATRICIA VON ZUR MUEHLEN, Plaintiff, v. ST. REGIS APARTMENTS, INC., et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Plaintiff Patricia Von Zur Muehlen moves to set aside the Order and Judgment Granting Attorney's Lien the Court entered in this matter on February 24, 2020. The lienholder, plaintiff's former attorney, Michael George, opposes the motion.
Plaintiff retained attorney Michael George to represent her in a dispute concerning the transfer of a stock certificate in the St. Regis Apartments, Inc., as well as possession and occupancy of Unit C7E of the St. Regis. This dispute has involved a series of actions, including this case and others filed in Missouri state court. Plaintiff filed her complaint in this case through attorney George on October 11, 2018. On August 12, 2019, while the matter remained ongoing, George filed a motion to withdraw, explaining plaintiff had discharged him. The Court granted the motion.
Two new attorneys entered the case for plaintiff ("plaintiff's second attorneys"). On December 27, 2019, George filed a motion to enforce attorney's lien pursuant to § 484.130 RSMo, claiming he had performed 154.75 hours of legal work and advanced $1,422.06 in expenses on the matter, all of which remained unpaid. He claimed a total of $55,584.56 in unpaid legal fees and expenses. He provided a redacted invoice of legal fees and expenses and stated the unredacted invoice had been provided to plaintiff and her second attorneys. Plaintiff never responded to the motion.
Nearly two months later, on February 24, 2020, the Court, noting that no opposition had been filed, granted George's motion. The Court entered an Order and Judgment granting George an attorney's lien pursuant to § 484.13 RSMo against plaintiff in the amount of $55,584.56, with such lien attaching to the property at issue in the case: St. Regis Apartments, Inc. Stock Certificate No. 267., and unit C7E.
Plaintiff's second attorneys filed a motion to withdraw from the case two days later, citing an irreconcilable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The Court granted the motion. On May 11, 2020, another attorney entered for plaintiff ("plaintiff's third attorney") and requested a continuance of case deadlines to discuss settlement with defendants. Plaintiff continued to litigate the case through her third attorney for nearly five more months with no mention of the attorney's lien.
On October 2, 2020, plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of all her claims with prejudice and—simultaneously—the motion at issue in this order. Plaintiff claims she did not know that her second attorneys did not respond to George's motion to enforce anattorney's lien. She asks the Court to set aside the Order and Judgment and to either deny George's request for a lien altogether or to reduce the amount of the lien.
As grounds for denying George any fees, plaintiff claims she fired George with cause because he failed to provide her with adequate representation, including by: filing this matter as a housing discrimination case in federal court rather than as a breach of indenture/quiet title matter in state court, which was against her clear directives and wishes, and was done in an attempt to increase his own fees; submitting discovery responses without her knowledge or consent and falsifying documents in previous litigation; and binding her to settlement agreements without first consulting her.
Alternatively, plaintiff argues that even if this Court concludes she discharged George without cause, he is limited to recover only the reasonable value of the services he rendered in this case and that his statement of fees includes work he performed in previous lawsuits, for which he is not entitled to a statutory lien here.
George opposes the motion. He argues that though plaintiff did not identify the legal basis for the relief she seeks, her motion appears to fall under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), which provides relief from a final judgment or order due to "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect," or under Rule 60(b)(6), which allows such relief for "any other reason that justifies relief." He says she has not shown she is entitled to relief under either section, arguing her claim that she did not know her second attorneys did not respond to his motion is not credible and that, even if so, her third attorney knew about the attorney's lien for months and chose not to do anything about it until after the case settled. George denies plaintiff's allegations regarding the quality ofrepresentation he provided her. He does not respond to her claim that his invoice includes charges for work done in prior cases.
The attorney's lien at...
To continue reading
Request your trial