law offices of david efron v. matthews & fullmer law firm, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Law Offices of David Efron v. Matthews & Fullmer Law Firm, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/21

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 141001

LAWOFFI CES OF DAVI D EFRON,

Appel l ant ,

v.

MATTHEWS & FULLMER LAW FI RM; CARLOS R. I GUI NA- OHARRI Z;HATUEY A. I NFANTE- CASTELLANOS,

Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Si l vi a Car r eo- Col l , U. S. Magi st r at e J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Howar d and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Davi d Ef r on and Law Of f i ces of Davi d Ef r on, P. C. , on br i ef f orappel l ant .

Toby B. Ful l mer , Mat t hews & Ful l mer , L. L. C. , Hat uey A.I nf ant e- Cast el l anos, and Hat uey I nf ant e Law Of f i ces, P. S. C. , onbr i ef f or appel l ees.

Apr i l 1, 2015


2/21

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Thi s appeal ar i ses out of a

di sput e bet ween t wo l aw f i r ms over how t o spl i t at t or neys' f ees due

t hem as a resul t of t hei r mut ual cl i ent s' r ecover y i n t he per sonal

i nj ur y l awsui t t hat gave r i se t o t hi s act i on. The appel l ant , t he

Law Of f i ces of Davi d Ef r on ( "Ef r on") , 1 expr esses unhappi ness wi t h

t he 40 per cent shar e t he di st r i ct cour t awar ded t o hi s f i r m. 2 I n

suppor t of Ef r on' s r equest t hat we or der t he di st r i ct cour t t o

r eappor t i on t he f ees i n some unspeci f i ed manner , he chal l enges t he

cour t ' s f act ual f i ndi ngs t hat he was not cr edi bl e and t hat he

i nt ended t o mi sl ead t he cour t about hi s f ee agr eement wi t h pr o hac

vi ce counsel Toby Ful l mer ( "Ful l mer " ) , of t he l aw f i r m Mat t hews &

Ful l mer . Ef r on al so chal l enges t he cour t ' s ex par t e communi cat i on

wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f s i n or der t o r esol ve a di sput e about whi ch

l awyer r epr esent ed t hem. Af t er det er mi ni ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

had anci l l ar y j ur i sdi ct i on over t he at t or neys' f ees di sput e, and

f i ndi ng no er r or at al l i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s anal ysi s or

conduct , we af f i r m.

1 We use "Ef r on" t o r ef er col l ect i vel y t o t he at t or ney andhi s l aw f i r m. The conduct of Ef r on t he i ndi vi dual i s pr i mar i l y at

i ssue i n t hi s appeal .

2 The par t i es consent ed t o pr oceed bef or e a magi st r at e j udgepur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 636( c) ( 1) . Because t he magi st r at e j udgehad aut hor i t y t o "conduct any or al l pr oceedi ngs" i n t he mat t er ,i d. , we r ef er t o r el evant r ul i ngs as t hose of "t he di st r i ct cour t , "or si mpl y "t he cour t . "

-2-


3/21

I. Background

I n 2008, pl ai nt i f f Or l ando Al ej andr o- Or t i z ( "Al ej andr o")

suf f er ed i nj ur i es f r oman el ect r i cal shock as he at t empt ed t o move

a downed power l i ne. Al ej andr o- Or t i z v. P. R. El ec. Power Aut h. ,

756 F. 3d 23, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Al ej andr o, al ong wi t h hi s wi f e

Soni a Rodr guez- J i menez ( "Rodr guez" ) and t hei r t wo mi nor chi l dr en

( col l ecti vel y, "pl ai nt i f f s") , r et ai ned t he Texas l aw f i r mMat t hews

& Ful l mer t o r epr esent t hem i n a l awsui t agai nst Puer t o Ri co

El ect r i c Power Aut hor i t y ( "PREPA") and i t s i nsur er . On Mar ch 30,

2010, Mat t hews & Ful l mer ent ered i nt o a " j oi nt vent ur e agr eement "

wi t h Ef r on t hat pr ovi ded t hat Ef r on woul d per f or m l ocal counsel

dut i es i n exchange f or 20 per cent of t he at t or neys' f ees.

Sever al weeks bef or e t r i al i n 2012, Ful l mer i nf or med

Ef r on t hat Mat t hews & Ful l mer coul d not t r y t he case. Ef r on

t her ef or e t r i ed t he case and obt ai ned a j udgment f or t he pl ai nt i f f s

i n t he amount s of $2, 025, 000 f or Al ej andr o, $855, 000 f or Rodr guez,

and $292, 500 f or each of t he t wo mi nor chi l dr en. The di st r i ct

cour t l at er r educed t he amount due Al ej andr o and t he chi l dr en t o

$1, 000, 000 i n l i ght of a set t l ement agr eement between t hose t hr ee

pl ai nt i f f s and PREPA' s i nsur er . PREPA successf ul l y appeal ed t he

awar d t o pl ai nt i f f Rodr guez. Al ej andr o- Or t i z, 756 F. 3d at 30.

Meanwhi l e, i n t he wake of t he j udgment , t he r el at i onshi p

between Ef r on and Mat t hews & Ful l mer deter i orated, wi t h t hei r

cl i ent s becomi ng pi ng- pong bal l s i n a cont est bet ween counsel .

-3-


4/21

Mat t hews & Ful l mer t r i ed t o f i r e Ef r on as l ocal counsel i n t hi s

case and t wo ot her s. Ef r on parr i ed t he move by get t i ng t he

pl ai nt i f f s to f i r e Mat t hews & Ful l mer . Ful l mer t hen convi nced t he

pl ai nt i f f s t o undue t he f i r i ng ( and t o f i r e Ef r on i nst ead) .

These event s bounced ont o t he di st r i ct cour t docket on

Oct ober 3, 2013, when appel l ees Car l os I gui na- Ohar r i z ( " I gui na")

and Hat uey I nf ant e- Cast el l anos ( " I nf ant e") , havi ng been r et ai ned by

Mat t hews & Ful l mer as new l ocal counsel , f i l ed a mot i on f or l eave

t o appear as subst i t ut e l ocal counsel f or t he pl ai nt i f f s. The next

day, Ef r on f i l ed a mot i on t o di squal i f y subst i t ut e l ocal counsel

and Mat t hews & Ful l mer , or , al t er nat i vel y, f or an at t or ney' s l i en

f or 80 per cent of t he at t or neys' f ees. Ef r on' s mot i on expl ai ned

t hat he "had expr essed and ver bal l y agr eed, not i n wr i t i ng, " wi t h

Mat t hews & Ful l mer t hat Ef r on woul d r ecei ve 80 percent of t he

at t or neys' f ees "because of t he addi t i onal wor k and r esponsi bi l i t y

i n t hi s case[ , ] i ncl udi ng t r i al . "

I n r esponse t o t hese duel i ng mot i ons, t he di st r i ct cour t

under st andabl y f ound i t sel f uncl ear as t o who- - i f anyone- -

r epr esent ed t he pl ai nt i f f s, and whet her t he pl ai nt i f f s wer e bei ng

pr ot ect ed as counsel f ought wi t h one anot her . The cour t i ssued t he

f ol l owi ng or der :

The Court i s deepl y concer ned about t heser i ous al l egat i ons bei ng made amongPl ai nt i f f s put at i ve at t or neys. . . . On t hebasi s of t he r ecor d now bef or e us- - andpar t i cul ar l y gi ven t he ser i al , compet i ngr evocat i ons and gr ant s of power of at t or ney- -

-4-


5/21

we ar e i ncapabl e of det er mi ni ng Pl ai nt i f f s't r ue i nt ent , and we cannot t r ust t he cl ai ms ofany of t he at t or neys now pur por t i ng t or epr esent t hem. Accor di ngl y, al l of t hoseat t orneys . . . are hereby ORDERED t oi mmedi atel y cease communi cat i ng wi t h

Pl ai nt i f f s wi t hout expr ess, pr i or consent f r omt hi s Cour t . . . .

Gi ven t he ser i ous char ges bei ngl evel ed, Pl ai nt i f f s ' i mpor t ant r i ght s t hatmust be pr otected, and t he r i sk of i mpr operi nf l uence bei ng exer ci sed upon Pl ai nt i f f s, t heCour t i nt ends t o communi cate, ex par t e, wi t hPl ai nt i f f s, i n an at t empt t o det er mi ne i f andwhen t hey mi ght be avai l abl e t o at t end ahear i ng. . . .

These post - j udgment uncer t ai nt i es posed a press i ng

pr obl embecause PREPA, i n r esponse t o a wr i t of execut i on i ssued by

t he cour t , was pr epared t o pay t he $1, 000, 000 owed t o t hr ee of t he

pl ai nt i f f s. I ndeed, i t appear s t hat i t was counsel s' conf l i cti ng

desi r es t o get t hei r hands on t hi s i mmi nent payment t hat br ought

t he di sput e t o a head. Ful l mer hel d out hi s hand by wr i t i ng a

l et t er - - whi ch he subsequent l y f i l ed wi t h t he cour t al ong wi t h t he

mot i on t o subst i t ut e l ocal counsel - - t o PREPA' s counsel i nf or mi ng

hi mt hat Ef r on no l onger r epr esent ed t he pl ai nt i f f s and t hat PREPA

shoul d send t he check t o I nf ant e or I gui na. Faced wi t h t he

possi bi l i t y t hat $1, 000, 000 coul d end up wi t h an at t or ney who di d

not r epr esent t he pl ai nt i f f s, t he di st r i ct cour t sensi bl y

i nst r uct ed PREPA " t o deposi t any f unds i n sat i sf act i on of t he

$1, 000, 000 j udgment wi t h t he Cour t ' s r egi st r y, wher e i t wi l l be

-5-


6/21

hel d i n an i nt er est - bear i ng account unt i l such t i me as Pl ai nt i f f s'

r epr esent at i on i s set t l ed. "

The di st r i ct cour t next or der ed Ef r on and Ful l mer t o

appear at a hear i ng so t hat , "bef or e maki ng any f ur t her r ul i ng, t he

Cour t [ coul d] hear f r om t he at t or neys pur por t i ng t o r epr esent

Pl ai nt i f f s. " The cour t al so i nf or med Ef r on and Ful l mer t hat " [ t ] he

Cour t has per sonal l y spoken t wi ce wi t h Pl ai nt i f f Soni a

Rodr guez- J i menez, and based on t hose conver sat i ons we do not

bel i eve i t necessar y at t hi s t i me t o appoi nt a speci al mast er or t o

have Pl ai nt i f f s appear bef or e t he Cour t . "

At t he hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t i nqui r ed about t wo

i ssues: t he event s t hat l ed t o t he t er mi nat i on of Ef r on as l ocal

counsel , and t he st at us of t he f ee- shar i ng agr eement bet ween Ef r on

and Mat t hews & Ful l mer . Ful l mer descr i bed t he conduct t hat l ed t o

hi s f i r m' s deci si on t o t er mi nat e Ef r on as l ocal counsel on t hr ee

cases, i ncl udi ng Ef r on' s deci si on t o f i l e a br i ef i n t hi s

under l yi ng case wi t hout al l owi ng Ful l mer t o r ead i t f i r st . Ful l mer

admi t t ed t hat he at t empt ed t o negot i ate a new f ee- shar i ng

arr angement wi t h Ef r on, but he deni ed t hat t hey ever r eached an

agr eement . I n r esponse, Ef r on specul ated t hat Mat t hews & Ful l mer

want ed hi m of f t he case i n or der t o cl ai m a l ar ger shar e of t he

at t or neys' f ees and as an ef f or t t o dodge a gar ni shment or der

served on Ef r on by a j udgment cr edi t or of t he Texas f i r m. As f or

t he f ee di vi si on bet ween t he at t or neys, Ef r on cl ai med t hat he woul d

-6-


7/21

not have agr eed t o t r y t he case f or l ess t han t he " l i on' s shar e" of

t he f ees.

On Oct ober 23, 2013, t he di st r i ct cour t ent er ed an or der

decl ar i ng that Mat t hews & Ful l mer woul d cont i nue t o repr esent t he

pl ai nt i f f s, wi t h I gui na and I nf ant e ser vi ng as subst i t ut e l ocal

counsel . Al ej andr o- Or t i z v. P. R. El ec. Power Aut h. , Ci v. No.

101320( SCC) , 2013 WL 5755358, at *7 ( D. P. R. Oct . 23, 2013) . The

or der t er mi nat ed Ef r on' s r epr esent at i on and pr ohi bi t ed Ef r on f r om

cont acti ng t he pl ai nt i f f s. I d. The di st r i ct cour t nonet hel ess

awar ded Ef r on 40 per cent of t he at t or neys' f ees. 3 I d. The cour t

f ound t hat Ef r on and Ful l mer never modi f i ed t he or i gi nal 20- 80

arr angement i n t he March 30, 2010, j oi nt vent ur e agr eement , but

al so f ound t hat Ef r on was ent i t l ed t o mor e than 20 per cent on a

quant um mer ui t basi s f or t he unant i ci pat ed wor k he per f or med i n

t r yi ng t he case. I d. at *5- 6.

Ef r on f i l ed a Rul e 59( e) mot i on aski ng t he di st r i ct cour t

t o amend or omi t cer t ai n f i ndi ngs i n i t s Oct ober 23 or der . Those

f i ndi ngs i ndi cat ed t hat Ef r on made mi sl eadi ng st atement s and was

not cr edi bl e wi t h r espect t o aspect s of hi s di sput e wi t h Ful l mer .

Whi l e hi s mot i on was pendi ng, Ef r on appeal ed t o t hi s cour t . The

di st r i ct cour t t hen deni ed t he Rul e 59( e) mot i on, def endi ng i t s

f i ndi ngs on Ef r on' s cr edi bi l i t y as bot h necessar y and wel l - f ounded.

3 Whi l e t hi s appeal was pendi ng, t he di st r i ct cour t di sbur sed40 per cent of t he at t or neys' f ees, or $126, 093. 23, t o Ef r on' s l awf i r m.

-7-


8/21

II. Analysis

Ef r on r ai ses t hr ee i ssues on appeal . Fi r st , he cont est s

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs wi t h r espect t o hi s cr edi bi l i t y and

at t empt s t o mi sl ead t he cour t . Second, he cl ai ms t hat he i s

ent i t l ed t o mor e t han 40 per cent of t he at t or neys' f ees. Thi r d, he

compl ai ns about t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ex par t e communi cat i on wi t h

pl ai nt i f f Rodr guez. Af t er det er mi ni ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t had

j ur i sdi ct i on, we address each ar gument i n t urn.

A. Ancillary Jurisdiction over the Fee Dispute

Fi r st , we must det er mi ne whet her t he di st r i ct cour t

cor r ect l y concl uded t hat i t had subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on t o

deci de what i s essent i al l y a pr i vat e cont r act di sput e bet ween non-

par t i es. Al t hough nei t her si de r ai ses t he i ssue on appeal , we have

an obl i gat i on t o make such a determi nat i on sua spont e. McCul l och

v. Vl ez, 364 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . We r evi ew i ssues of

j ur i sdi ct i on de novo. Cooper v. Char t er Comms. Ent er t ai nment s I ,

LLC, 760 F. 3d 103, 105 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

At f i r st gl ance, i t seems l i ke di ver si t y coul d have

pr ovi ded an i ndependent basi s f or t he di st r i ct cour t ' s j ur i sdi ct i on

over a si zabl e f ee di sput e bet ween a Texas l aw f i r m and l ocal

counsel i n Puer t o Ri co. See 28 U. S. C. 1332. The di st r i ct cour t

di d not assess i t s j ur i sdi ct i on under t he di ver si t y r ubr i c,

however , and t he recor d on appeal pr ovi des i nsuf f i ci ent

j ur i sdi ct i onal f act s f or t hi s cour t t o make a deter mi nat i on. Al so,

-8-


9/21

t he pr obabl e Puer t o Ri can ci t i zenshi p and pot ent i al

i ndi spensabi l i t y of new l ocal counsel I nf ant e and I gui na, t o whom

part of Mat t hews & Ful l mer ' s f ee woul d be due, cast some doubt on

t he exi st ence of di ver si t y j ur i sdi cti on. Pi cci ot t o v. Cont ' l Cas.

Co. , 512 F. 3d 9, 15- 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

We t her ef or e l ook to the possi bi l i t y of j ur i sdi cti on

anci l l ar y to the cour t ' s j ur i sdi cti on over t he under l yi ng sui t .

Feder al cour t s have of t en exer ci sed aut hor i t y under t he doct r i ne of

anci l l ar y j ur i sdi ct i on t o r esol ve f ee di sput es bet ween par t i es and

t hei r at t or neys t hat ar i se out of t he under l yi ng l i t i gat i on.

Ri ver a- Domenech v. Cal vesber t Law Of f i ces PSC, 402 F. 3d 246, 250

( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( per cur i am) ( di ct um) ; see al so Exact Sof t war e N.

Am. , I nc. v. DeMoi sey, 718 F. 3d 535, 542 ( 6t h Ci r . 2013)

( col l ect i ng cases) ( "For year s, i ndeed si nce t he ear l y year s of t he

r epubl i c, f eder al cour t s have r esol ved f ee di sput es bet ween l awyer s

and t hei r cl i ent s when t hose di sput es ari se out of t he under l yi ng

case . . . . ") ; 13 Wr i ght & Mi l l er , Feder al Pr act i ce & Pr ocedur e

3523. 2 ( 3d ed. ) ( "One of t he best - est abl i shed uses of anci l l ar y

j ur i sdi ct i on i s over proceedi ngs concer ni ng cost s and at t or neys'

f ees. ") . One br oad pur pose of such j ur i sdi ct i on i s "t o enabl e a

cour t t o f unct i on successf ul l y, t hat i s, t o manage i t s pr oceedi ngs,

vi ndi cat e i t s aut hor i t y, and ef f ect uat e i t s decrees. " Kokkonen v.

Guar di an Li f e I ns. Co. , 511 U. S. 375, 380 ( 1994) .

-9-


10/21

Whet her f eder al cour t s al so have anci l l ar y j ur i sdi ct i on

over f ee di sput es bet ween at t orneys who repr esent ed t he same

cl i ent , especi al l y when t he cl i ent was not a par t y to t he l awyer s'

f ee- shar i ng agr eement , i s l ess cl ear . I n one i mpor t ant r espect , a

di sput e bet ween counsel who cl ai mcol l ect i vel y mor e t han t he t ot al

amount of f ees owed by t he cl i ent i s much l i ke a di sput e between

t he l awyer s and t he cl i ent because, unt i l i t i s r esol ved, t he

pr esence of compet i ng and i nconsi st ent at t or neys' l i ens may hi nder

t he cl i ent ' s r ecei pt of t he amount due t he cl i ent . Even wi t hout

consi der at i on of t hi s possi bl e i mpact on t he cl i ent , ot her ci r cui t s

have f ound anci l l ar y j ur i sdi ct i on over di sput es among counsel when

t he f unds subj ect t o t he di sput e ar e i n t he cour t ' s cont r ol .

Compar e Baer v. Fi r st Opt i ons of Chi cago, I nc. , 72 F. 3d 1294, 1298,

1301 ( 7t h Ci r . 1995) ( di st r i ct cour t had anci l l ar y j ur i sdi cti on t o

deci de a r ef er r al f ee di sput e bet ween at t orneys, when t he

set t l ement appr oved by t he cour t cont ai ned t er ms f or cal cul at i ng

t he f ees and the di sput ed amount was hel d i n an escr ow account by

t he cl er k of cour t ) ; and Gr i mes v. Chr ysl er Mot or s Cor p. , 565 F. 2d

841, 844 ( 2d Ci r . 1977) ( per cur i am) ( cour t had anci l l ar y

j ur i sdi ct i on t o deci de a f ee di sput e bet ween t r i al counsel and

at t or ney of r ecor d af t er t he cour t appr oved t he set t l ement , because

t he set t l ement f unds wer e i n t he cour t ' s r egi st r y and t her ef or e

wi t hi n i t s cont r ol ) ; wi t h Tayl or v. Kel sey, 666 F. 2d 53, 54 ( 4t h

Ci r . 1981) ( per cur i am) ( no anci l l ar y j ur i sdi ct i on exi st ed over a

-10-


11/21

"pur el y" pr i vat e cont r act di sput e bet ween an at t or ney and f or mer

co- counsel , because t he f ee di sput e had no ef f ect on t he out come of

t he l i t i gat i on or t he r ecover y of t he pl ai nt i f f s, and t he cour t di d

not have cont r ol over t he di sput ed f unds) .

Ef r on' s f ee di sput e di d not ar i se i n t he cour se of

enf orci ng or appr ovi ng a set t l ement agr eement , as was t he case i n

Gr i mes and Baer , but i t di d emer ge i n di r ect r esponse t o t he

cour t ' s deci si on t o al l ow par t i al execut i on on i t s j udgment . The

di st r i ct cour t needed t o r esol ve t he anci l l ar y f ee di sput e i n or der

t o compl ete t he execut i on on t he under l yi ng j udgment . See

Kokkonen, 511 U. S. at 381. The di st r i ct cour t ' s cont r ol over

$1, 000, 000 of t he par t i al l y execut ed j udgment t her ef or e conf er r ed

aut hor i t y t o det er mi ne t he pr oper r eci pi ent s of t hose f unds i n

or der t o concl ude t he cour t ' s r esponsi bi l i t i es i n t he under l yi ng

act i on. See Baer , 72 F. 3d at 1301; Gr i mes, 565 F. 2d at 844.

B. Findings on Credibility and Misleading Statements

Ef r on f i r st chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs t hat

he at t empt ed t o mi sl ead the cour t and t hat he was not cr edi bl e.

Those chal l enged f i ndi ngs addressed t hree r epr esent at i ons t hat

Ef r on made t o t he cour t : ( 1) t hat he and Mat t hews & Ful l mer "had

expr essed and ver bal l y agr eed" t hat Ef r on woul d r ecei ve 80 percent

of t he f ee awar d; ( 2) t hat Ef r on di d not put t he r evi sed f ee

agr eement i n wr i t i ng because he t r ust ed Ful l mer ; and ( 3) t hat

Ef r on' s Spani sh- speaki ng at t or neys, and not Mat t hews & Ful l mer ,

-11-


12/21

f aci l i t at ed pr epar at i on f or t he t r i al because t he pl ai nt i f f s "speak

l i t t l e or no Engl i sh. " Ef r on made t he f i r st and t hi r d st at ement s

i n hi s mot i on, and t he second at t he hear i ng.

Dur i ng t he hear i ng, Ful l mer t est i f i ed t hat he deni ed

Ef r on' s r equest f or an 80 per cent f ee because Ful l mer ' s f i r m bor e

t he f i nanci al r i sk of t he case by payi ng mor e than $100, 000 i n

l i t i gat i on expenses. Ful l mer count er ed wi t h al t er nat i ve f ee

di vi si ons of "30- 70, 40- 60, 50- 50, " but "[ Ef r on] di dn' t want

t hose, " and never accept ed any count er of f er . Ful l mer al so ar gued

t hat "had t here been [ a modi f i ed f ee agr eement ] , any at t orney woul d

have sought t hat i n wr i t i ng. " Wi t h r espect t o communi cat i ng wi t h

t he pl ai nt i f f s, Ful l mer t ol d t he cour t t hat pl ai nt i f f Rodr guez

"speaks gr eat Engl i sh, " and t hat he "al ways t al ked wi t h her . " Thi s

t est i mony by Ful l mer pr ovi ded ampl e suppor t f or t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat t he agr eement al l eged by Ef r on di d not exi st .

But t her e was mor e. Ef r on' s own t est i mony bel i ed hi s

pr i or r epr esent at i ons t o t he cour t . I nst ead of backi ng up hi s

cl ai m t hat t her e was an expr ess ver bal agr eement t hat Ef r on woul d

r ecei ve 80 per cent of t he at t or neys' f ees, Ef r on f el l back t o

sayi ng onl y t hat t her e was an " i mpl i ci t " agr eement t hat he woul d

r ecei ve " t he l i on' s shar e. " I n f act , Ef r on admi t t ed t hat Ful l mer

never agr eed t o change the f ee- shar i ng agr eement : " [ w] e t r i ed t o

come t o an agr eement wi t h [ Ful l mer ] . He woul d have nothi ng t o do

wi t h i t . He i nsi st ed t hat i t was 20% and t he l ast t hi ng he sai d,

-12-


13/21

and I was ver y sor r y t o hear t hat f r om hi m, was ' [ w] e' l l have t o

l et t he Cour t deci de. ' " I n shor t , Ef r on' s t est i mony mat er i al l y

f el l shor t of t he asser t i on made i n hi s mot i on t hat he and Ful l mer

"had expr essed and verbal l y agr eed" t hat Ef r on woul d keep 80

per cent of t he f ee.

Gi ven t he f or egoi ng t est i mony, t he di st r i ct cour t as

f act f i nder cl ear l y had ampl e basi s t o f i nd, as i t di d, "t hat

Ef r on s comment s i n hi s mot i on about an expr ess verbal cont r act

wer e meant t o mi sl ead t he Cour t . " Al ej andr o- Or t i z, 2013 WL

5755358, at *3.

The di st r i ct cour t di d not bel i eve Ef r on on t wo ot her

poi nt s. The cour t f ound t hat "Ef r on s st at ement t hat he di d not

ask f or t he [ f ee] agr eement i n wr i t i ng because he ' t r ust ed' Ful l mer

[ was] not cr edi bl e or bel i evabl e, " because "bot h at t or neys seem

suf f i ci ent l y compet ent not t o have act ed i n such a manner . " I d.

And, i n l i ght of Ef r on' s mi sl eadi ng st at ement s about t he f ee

agr eement and Engl i sh- l anguage t ext messages bet ween Ef r on' s

associ at e and pl ai nt i f f Rodr guez, t he di st r i ct cour t ( whi ch had

spoken di r ect l y t o one of t he pl ai nt i f f s) was al so "f or ced t o

concl ude t hat Ef r on was pur posef ul l y mi sl eadi ng the Cour t " when he

r epr esent ed t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s "speak l i t t l e or no Engl i sh. " I d.

at *4.

Ef r on compl ai ns t hat t hese unf l at t er i ng f i ndi ngs wer e

unnecessary di ct a and ought t o be amended or st r i cken f r om t he

-13-


14/21

or der . Ef r on never ar t i cul at es a basi s f or such r el i ef , and

i nst ead si mpl y l abel s t he cour t ' s f i ndi ngs di cta,

"mi sr epr esent [ i ng] . . . t he f act s, " and evi dence of t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s per sonal bi as agai nst hi m.

The si mpl e r esponse i s t hat , i f t he chal l enged f i ndi ngs

wer e t r ul y onl y di ct a, we woul d l i kel y not r evi ew t hem on appeal .

See I n r e Wi l l i ams, 156 F. 3d 86, 92 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( "[ C] r i t i cal

comment s made i n t he cour se of a t r i al cour t ' s wont ed

f unct i ons- - say, f act f i ndi ng or opi ni on wr i t i ng- - do not const i t ut e

a sanct i on and pr ovi de no i ndependent basi s f or an appeal . " ) . The

mor e di r ect r esponse i s t hat t hese ar e pr eci sel y the ki nd of

f i ndi ngs t hat cour t s or j ur i es make i n deci di ng di sput es of t hi s

t ype. Ef r on' s credi bi l i t y was r el evant , especi al l y i n r esol vi ng

t he "he sai d, he sai d" di sput e bet ween Ef r on and Ful l mer . And t he

evi dence pr esent ed t o t he cour t - - i ncl udi ng Ef r on' s own i nt er nal l y

i nconsi st ent st or y- - cl ear l y pr ovi ded t he necessar y suppor t f or i t s

adver se f i ndi ngs t hat Ef r on was not cr edi bl e and had t r i ed t o

mi sl ead t he cour t . See Ryan v. Ast r a Tech, I nc. , 772 F. 3d 50, 61-

62 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y di sbel i eved t he

accur acy of a sanct i oned at t or ney' s ver si on of event s i n par t

because the l awyer ' s " account of t he event s and hi s act i ons . . .

d[ i d] not i nspi r e conf i dence i n hi s t r ut hf ul ness") .

Ef r on seems t o f or get t hat , i n t hi s di sput e, he pl ayed

t he r ol e of a par t y and a wi t ness. He shoul d har dl y be sur pr i sed

-14-


15/21

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t made rout i ne f act - f i ndi ng j udgment s about

t he cr edi bi l i t y of t he asser t i ons he made i n di r ect suppor t of hi s

cl ai m f or mor e money. Di st r i ct cour t s do t hi s ever y day. See,

e. g. , J ackson v. Uni t ed St at es, 708 F. 3d 23, 30- 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ;

Sheppar d v. Ri ver Val l ey Fi t ness One, L. P. , 428 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) . And we r evi ew such f i ndi ngs def er ent i al l y, especi al l y when

t hey bear on cr edi bi l i t y. J enni ngs v. J ones, 587 F. 3d 430, 444

( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( "Di st r i ct cour t det er mi nat i ons of credi bi l i t y ar e

of cour se ent i t l ed t o gr eat def er ence. ") . Si mi l ar l y, as a par t y

aski ng t he cour t , i n ef f ect , t o equi t abl y appor t i on f ees t o hi m i n

excess of t he por t i on speci f i ed i n hi s cont r act , he can har dl y

compl ai n t hat t he di st r i ct cour t pai d at t ent i on t o hi s car e and

good f ai t h i n r epr esent i ng f act s t o t he cour t . See Texaco P. R. ,

I nc. v. Dep' t of Consumer Af f ai r s, 60 F. 3d 867, 880 ( 1st Ci r . 1995)

( descr i bi ng equi t abl e doct r i ne of uncl ean hands) . For al l of t hese

r easons, t her e i s no basi s t o di st ur b t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

f i ndi ngs. 4

4 To t he ext ent Ef r on chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ' sst at ement s on t he basi s t hat t hey ref l ect bi as, hi s argument i sut t er l y wi t hout mer i t . Ef r on di d not seek t he magi st r at e j udge' sr ecusal , and i n f act af f i r mat i vel y wai ved any cl ai m of bi as byst at i ng, i n hi s mot i on f or r econsi der at i on, t hat "Ef r on does notseek t o r ecuse or di squal i f y t he [ magi st r at e j udge] based on bi as

or pr ej udi ce. " See Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez, 311 F. 3d 435, 437( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( "A par t y wai ves a r i ght when he i nt ent i onal l yr el i nqui shes or abandons i t . " ) . Even i f Ef r on had not wai ved anycl ai m of bi as, "opi ni ons f or med by t he j udge on t he basi s of f act si nt r oduced or event s occur r i ng i n t he cour se of t he cur r entpr oceedi ngs . . . do not const i t ut e a basi s f or a bi as orpar t i al i t y mot i on unl ess t hey di spl ay a deep- seat ed f avor i t i sm or

-15-


16/21

C. Attorneys' Fees Apportionment

Havi ng r ej ect ed Ef r on' s cl ai m t hat t he l awyer s made any

agr eement r egardi ng f ees ot her t han t he agr eement t hat al l ot t ed 20

per cent t o Ef r on, t he di st r i ct cour t never t hel ess awar ded Ef r on 40

per cent of t he f ees. I n doi ng so, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded

t hat t he l awyer s' agr eement di d not ant i ci pat e or addr ess t he r ol es

ul t i matel y assumed, and that t he added work Ef r on per f ormed mer i t ed

a 40 per cent shar e of t he f ees. Ful l mer has not appeal ed t hi s

equi t abl e adj ust ment . Ef r on, t hough, has, cl ai mi ng t hat he shoul d

have r ecei ved more.

I t i s har d t o i magi ne our over t ur ni ng such an i nher ent l y

di scr et i onar y equi t abl e appor t i onment by t he di st r i ct cour t . See

Li pset t v. Bl anco, 975 F. 2d 934, 937 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( " [ B] ecause

det er mi nat i on of t he extent of a r easonabl e f ee necessar i l y

i nvol ves a ser i es of j udgment cal l s, an appel l at e cour t i s f ar mor e

l i kel y t o def er t o t he t r i al cour t i n r evi ewi ng f ee comput at i ons

t han i n many ot her si t uat i ons. " ) . J ust as the cour t not ed t hat

Ef r on di d more t han l ocal counsel woul d nor mal l y do, so t oo i t

observed how Mat t hews & Ful l mer "par t i ci pat ed t o a si gni f i cant

degr ee . . . f r om[ t he case' s] i ncept i on up unt i l t r i al , i ncl udi ng

ant agoni sm t hat woul d make f ai r j udgment i mpossi bl e. " Li t eky v.Uni t ed St ates, 510 U. S. 540, 555 ( 1994) . Rather t han ant agoni sm,t he di st r i ct cour t di spl ayed pat i ence and bal ance i n r esol vi ng adi f f i cul t and unusual pr obl em, and i t expl ai ned t hat i t " t houghtl ong and hard about whether [ t he words t he cour t used] were pr operand war r ant ed, and [ i t ] empl oyed them r el uct ant l y. "

-16-


17/21

by pr epar i ng and f i l i ng mot i ons and secur i ng exper t s, " and

cont i nued t o bear t he f i nanci al r i sk of r ecei vi ng no compensat i on

f or t he l i t i gat i on expenses i t had pai d. Al ej andr o- Or t i z, 2013 WL

5755358, at *6.

Ef r on hi msel f poi nt s t o no ot her speci f i c, mor e

appr opr i ate apport i onment , nor does he expl ai n why t he 40 percent

awar d i s so i ndef ensi bl e as t o be vul ner abl e t o t he l i mi t ed r evi ew

appl i cabl e her e. The ar gument i n Ef r on' s openi ng br i ef consi st s of

a r ef er ence t o t he abuse of di scr et i on st andar d of r evi ew, a

concl usor y st at ement t hat " [ s] i mpl y put , t he Magi st r at e' s

r esol ut i on of t he f i nances of t hi s case ar e [ si c] wr ong, " and

i r r el evant di gr essi ons. 5 Ef r on does tel l us that he once r ecei ved

80 per cent of t he at t or neys' f ees f or a medi cal mal pr act i ce case

r ef err ed t o hi m by Mat t hews & Ful l mer and f or whi ch he ser ved as

l ead counsel f r om t he out set . Of cour se, t hat one dat a poi nt i s

not an apt compar i son f or t hi s case, i n whi ch Mat t hews & Ful l mer

pl ayed a si gni f i cant r ol e. Ef r on al so l at ches ont o Ful l mer ' s

suggest i on dur i ng t he hear i ng t hat Ful l mer of f er ed and Ef r on

r ej ect ed a 50- 50 shar e, but Ef r on f ai l s t o expl ai n why he shoul d

now benef i t f r om a bar gai n he once r ej ect ed. Such a per f unct or y

5 Ef r on at t empt s t o asser t t he r i ght of Mat t hews & Ful l mer ' sal l eged j udgment cr edi t or t o gar ni sh Mat t hews & Ful l mer ' s por t i onof t he f ee. Of cour se, as Ef r on acknowl edges, t hat di sput e i s "not[ hi s] f i ght . " A qui ck gl ance at t he di st r i ct cour t docket af t ert hi s appeal was f i l ed assures us t hat t he cr edi t or appear s mor et han capabl e of asser t i ng i t s own r i ght s.

-17-


18/21

ef f or t on appeal bor der s on wai ver . See Rodr guez v. Muni ci pal i t y

of San J uan, 659 F. 3d 168, 175 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( " I t shoul d go

wi t hout sayi ng t hat we deem wai ved cl ai ms not made or cl ai ms

adver t ed t o i n a cur sor y f ashi on, unaccompani ed by devel oped

ar gument . " ) ; Har r i man v. Hancock Cnt y. , 627 F. 3d 22, 28 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) ( appel l ant wai ved i ssues when he "cor r ect l y i dent i f i e[ d] t he

st andar d of r evi ew, but t hat [ was] about al l " ) . Wai ved or not ,

Ef r on' s argument f ai l s t o show t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s

di scret i on i n det er mi ni ng t he r el at i ve val ue of Ef r on' s l egal

ser vi ces.

D. The District Court's Ex Parte Communication

Ef ron' s f i nal cl ai mof err or i s that t he di s tr i ct court ' s

communi cat i on wi t h pl ai nt i f f Rodr guez vi ol at ed t he pr ohi bi t i on on

ex part e communi cat i ons i n Canon 3( A) ( 4) of t he Code of Conduct f or

Uni t ed St ates J udges. 6 At no t i me di d Ef r on obj ect t o t he di st r i ct

6 Canon 3( A) ( 4) r eads i n r el evant par t as f ol l ows:

A j udge shoul d accor d t o ever y person whohas a l egal i nt er est i n a pr oceedi ng, and t hatper son s l awyer , t he f ul l r i ght t o be hear daccor di ng t o l aw. Except as set out bel ow, aj udge shoul d not i ni t i at e, per mi t , or consi derex part e communi cat i ons or consi der othercommuni cat i ons concer ni ng a pendi ng ori mpendi ng mat t er t hat are made out si de t he

pr esence of t he par t i es or t hei rl awyer s. . . . A j udge may:

. . . .

( b) when ci r cumst ances r equi r e i t , per mi tex part e communi cat i on f or schedul i ng,

-18-


19/21

cour t ' s announced i nt ent i on t o communi cate ex par t e wi t h t he

pl ai nt i f f s, or t o t he communi cat i on i t sel f . We t her ef or e r evi ew

f or pl ai n er r or , a st andar d t hat r equi r es Ef r on t o show, among

ot her t hi ngs, a cl ear or obvi ous er r or t hat af f ect ed hi s

subst ant i al r i ght s. Dvi l a v. Cor por aci n de P. R. par a l a Di f usi n

Pbl i ca, 498 F. 3d 9, 14- 15 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

Of cour se, t hi s appeal i s not a j udi ci al di sci pl i nar y

pr oceedi ng. I t t her ef or e makes no di f f er ence on t hi s appeal

whet her t he di st r i ct cour t vi ol at ed t he per t i nent canon unl ess t hat

vi ol at i on somehow coul d have t ai nt ed t he j udgment f r omwhi ch Ef r on

appeal s. Ef r on, i n t ur n, poi nt s t o no such pl ausi bl e nexus, and

i nst ead mer el y asser t s i n a concl usory f or m t hat such a supposed

vi ol at i on i nf r i nged on hi s due pr ocess r i ght s. How t hi s i s so- -

much l ess pl ai nl y so- - we ar e l ef t t o guess.

I n any event , we can easi l y cut t o t he chase and r ej ect

Ef r on' s argument on i t s mer i t s. The canon al l ows ex par t e

communi cat i ons " f or schedul i ng, admi ni st r at i ve, or emer gency

pur poses . . . i f t he ex par t e communi cat i on does not addr ess

subst ant i ve mat t er s and t he j udge r easonabl y bel i eves t hat no par t y

wi l l gai n a pr ocedur al , subst ant i ve, or t act i cal advant age. " Code

admi ni st r at i ve, or emer gency pur poses, butonl y i f t he ex part e communi cat i on does notaddr ess subst ant i ve mat t ers and t he j udger easonabl y bel i eves t hat no par t y wi l l gai n apr ocedur al , subst ant i ve, or t act i cal advant ageas a resul t of t he ex par t e communi cat i on.

-19-


20/21

of Conduct f or Uni t ed St at es J udges Canon 3( A) ( 4) ( b) . The di st r i ct

cour t cl ear l y f aced an emer gency: t he pl ai nt i f f s' l ocal and pr o hac

vi ce counsel wer e at odds over who act ual l y r epr esent ed the

pl ai nt i f f s. Nor di d t he di st r i ct cour t ' s communi cat i on wi t h t he

pl ai nt i f f s have anyt hi ng t o do wi t h t he subst ance of t he under l yi ng

case or even t he anci l l ar y mat t er of t he f ee di vi si on bet ween Ef r on

and Mat t hews & Ful l mer . Gi ven t hat t he di st r i ct cour t announced

i t s i nt ent i on t o t al k t o t he pl ai nt i f f s, and no one obj ected, we

cannot see how t he cour t possi bl y vi ol at ed Canon 3( A) ( 4) , l et al one

cl ear l y or obvi ousl y vi ol at ed i t i n a manner t hat caused i mpr oper

pr ej udi ce t o Ef r on i n t hi s case.

Ef r on al so cl ai ms t hat t he ex par t e communi cat i ons

vi ol at ed hi s due pr ocess r i ght s i n connect i on wi t h di sci pl i nar y

pr oceedi ngs7 i nst i t ut ed agai nst Ef r on as a r esul t of hi s conduct i n

a di f f erent case. How t hat may be so, we have no i dea, and Ef r on

agai n does not enl i ght en us. I n any event , t hat ar gument about

anot her case i s i r r el evant t o t he i ssues bef or e us now.

7 Ef r on asked t o f i l e a seal ed addendum wi t h cour t document sf r om t hat di sci pl i nar y pr oceedi ng and whi ch ar e not a par t of t hedi st r i ct cour t r ecor d f or t hi s appeal . A dut y panel of t hi s cour t

def er r ed a deci si on on whet her t o t ake j udi ci al not i ce of t hesedocument s t o t he mer i t s panel . Because the seal ed document s arenot r el evant t o t he i ssues on t hi s appeal , we decl i ne t o t akej udi ci al not i ce. Kowal ski v. Gagne, 914 F. 2d 299, 305 ( 1st Ci r .1990) ( "I t i s wel l - accept ed t hat f eder al cour t s may t ake j udi ci alnot i ce of pr oceedi ngs i n ot her cour t s i f t hose pr oceedi ngs haver el evance t o t he mat t er s at hand. " ) .

-20-


21/21

III. Conclusion

Fi ndi ng no f aul t wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s conduct and

r ul i ngs, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s October 23, 2013, or der .

-21-

law offices of david efron v. matthews & fullmer law firm, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents