Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 01-18-2023
Case Style:
Shelby Roden, L.L.C. v. William G. Horton, et al
Case Number: 1:22-cv-00180
Judge: Kristi K. DuBose
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (Mobile County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Robert B. Roden and Matthew Roden
Defendant's Attorney: James B. Newman, Josph P.H. Babington, Thomas Ryan Luna
Description: Mobile, Alabama civil litigation lawyers sued Defendants on tort theories.
On January 30, 2021, Samuel Micah Skelton (“Skelton”), a non-party to this action, sustained serious injuries when his motorcycle was involved in a crash with a vehicle owned by another non-party to this action, Amy Lynn Monroe (“Monroe”). (See Doc. 12, PageID.58). Skelton hired Plaintiff Shelby Roden LLC (&ldquo ;Shelby Roden”) on February 5, 2021 “to pursue a personal injury case on his behalf and to recover damages sustained as a result of the aforementioned motorcycle crash.” (Id.). Skelton's agreement/contract with Plaintiff provided, in part, that he was to pay Shelby Roden “a contingency fee of 33 1/3% of the gross sums recovered if the matter was resolved prior to filing a lawsuit plus any advanced expenses incurred during the course of Plaintiff's representation of Skelton.” (Id.).
Monroe and her vehicle were insured by State Farm, with bodily injury limits of $100,000.00, while Skelton's underinsured motorist coverage through GEICO had combined policy limits of $125,000.00. (Id.). State Farm offered its bodily injury policy limits of $100,000.00 to resolve/settle Skelton's case/claims against its insured Monroe on or about April 5, 2021, and GEICO offered its uninsured motorist policy limits of $125,000.00 to resolve/settle Skelton's claims/case against it on or about April 20, 2021. (Id.). On both of these dates when the policy limits were offered by State Farm and GEICO, Shelby Roden represented Skelton. (Id.).
Shelby Roden presented the offers from State Farm and GEICO to Skelton on or about April 21, 2021, and on or about April 23, 2021, Shelby Roden “wrote State Farm
2
and GEICO with draft instructions for the proposed settlement specifying that the drafts be made payable to Plaintiff and Skelton.” (Doc. 12, PageID.58-59). Shelby Roden presented the settlement agreements to Skelton for his execution on or about April 28, 2021, and the following day (April 29, 2021), Skelton terminated Shelby Roden. (Doc. 12, PageID.59). On the same day that Skelton terminated Shelby Roden (April 29, 2021), Plaintiff wrote to GEICO, State Farm, and Jeff Roberts & Associates PLLC,[2]advising those entities that it was “claiming an attorney lien on the proceeds of Skelton's case under Alabama Code § 34-3-61 in the amount of $75,000, or 33 1/3% of the $225,000 global policy limits offered while Plaintiff represented Skelton.” (Doc. 12, PageID.59).
Some eight and one-half months later, on or about January 17, 2022, Defendants GEICO and State Farm sent drafts for $125,000.00 and $100,000.00, respectively, to Defendants Horton and Horton Law Firm for resolution/settlement of Skelton's claims against the insurance companies. Shelby Roden was not contacted by any of the Defendants regarding the settlement of Skelton's claims. (Id.).
On May 3, 2022, Plaintiff Shelby Roden filed the instant action in this Court against William G. Horton, Horton Law Firm PLLC, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, and GEICO Casualty Company. (See Doc. 1, PageID.1). Because Plaintiff's initial complaint did not adequately allege subject matter jurisdiction (see id, PageID.1-2), the undersigned entered an Order on
3
August 25, 2022, instructing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint adequately alleging subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 11). Plaintiff complied with the Court's Order and filed its Amended Complaint on September 8, 2022. (Doc. 12). Because the Court's Order and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint arose following State Farm's motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) and the briefing of the parties (see Docs. 9 & 10), State Farm filed a motion to dismiss amended complaint on September 21, 2022 (Doc. 13). Since the Amended Complaint made no substantive changes to Plaintiff's initial complaint (compare Doc. 12 with Doc. 1), the undersigned did not take State Farm's motion to dismiss amended complaint under submission but, instead, simply notified the parties that the Court would consider the written submissions previously filed by the parties (Docs. 6, 9 & 10) in determining whether State Farm's motion to dismiss first amended complaint (Doc. 13) should be granted or denied (see Doc. 14).[3]
The Amended Complaint asserts claims of tortious interference with contractual relations (Count I), negligence (Count II), and wantonness (Count III); Shelby Roden asserts all three claims against Defendants Horton and Horton Law Firm, but against State Farm and the GEICO defendants, Plaintiff asserts only negligence and wantonness. (Doc. 12, PageID.60-62). In the negligence and wantonness counts, Plaintiff alleges the following:
28. Plaintiff is within the class of persons that were sought to be protected by the enactment of Alabama Code § 34-3-61, and the nonpayment of attorney fees is the exact type of injury contemplated by Alabama Code § 34-3-61.
29. Defendants did negligently violate Alabama Code § 34-3-61, which states no person shall be at liberty to satisfy an action or judgment
4
until the lien or claim of the attorney for his or her fees is fully satisfied, by resolving the above-mentioned cases and/or claims without fully satisfying Plaintiff's attorney lien and/or claim for attorney fees.
30. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' negligent violations of Alabama Code § 34-3-61, Plaintiff was caused to suffer damages. ...
32. Plaintiff is within the class of persons that were sought to be protected by the enactment of Alabama Code § 34-3-61, and the nonpayment of attorney fees is the exact type of injury contemplated by Alabama Code § 34-3-61.
33. Defendants did wantonly, willfully and/or recklessly violate Alabama Code § 34-3-61, which states no person shall be at liberty to satisfy an action or judgment until the lien or claim of the attorney for his or her fees is fully satisfied, by resolving the above-mentioned cases and/or claims without fully satisfying Plaintiff's attorney lien and/or claim for attorney fees with knowledge of and conscious disregard of the likely injury to Plaintiff.
34. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' wanton violations of Alabama Code § 34-3-61, Plaintiff was caused to suffer damages.
Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: