0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
142 Ansichten5 Seiten
Now comes Intervenor McGown Markling Co., L.P.A. Intervenor ), former legal counsel for Relator Brian J. Essi Relator ). The arguments asserted in Respondent City of Lakewood Respondent Brief in Opposition to Intervenor Motion to Intervene Brief in
Opposition must be rejected andIntervenor Motion to Intervene Motion to Intervene granted because Respondent(1) presents an inaccurate and misleading analysis of case law; (2)
misapplies Intervenor argumentin the Motion to Intervene; and(3) asserts arguments that are
trivial. Each argument is addressed below.
I. LAW AND ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, the Briefin Oppositionpresents aninaccurate andmisleading
analysis ofthe case law in arguingthat intervention shouldbe deniedbecause anattorney
charginglien cannot attach whereno judgment, settlement, or other fund-creating event has
yet to occur. Briefin Opposition at 2, citing Slaterv. OhioDept, ofRehab, andCorrection, 10th
State ofOhio ex rel.
BRIANJ. ESSI
Relator,
v.
CITYOFLAKEWOOD,OHIO
Respondent.
Electronically Filed 12/07/2018 08:44 FILING OTHERTHAN MOTION / CA 16 104659 Confirmation Nbr. 1569085 CLAXY
Dist. FranklinNo. 17AP-453,2018-Ohio-1475, 29. Seealso Briefin Opposition at 1-2, citing
Ruttman v. Flores, 8th Dist. CuyahogaNo. 66079, 1994 WL677539, * 14 (Dec. 1, 1994),
Kisling, Nestico Redick, LLCv. ProgressiveMaxIns. Co., 8th Dist. CuyahogaNo. 105287,
2017-0hio-8064,If 14. However, this is an inaccurate andmisleading analysis ofthe case law as
all ofthese courts madedeterminations basedupon contingency fee agreementbetweenthe
attorneyandthe attorney former client. SeeSlater at ]f (holding the same); Ruttman at *14
(holding the same); Kislingat 17 (holding the same). In the instant matter, Intervenorhas an
hourlyrepresentation agreementwithRelator that is not contingent fee agreement. Relator
owes Intervenor attorneyfees regardless ofthe outcome ofin this case.
Respondent also misconstrues Intervenor use ofthe phrase “prospectivejudgment in
this case, as well as settlement funds and applicable proceeds that maybepaid to meanthat no
fundexists fromwhichIntervenormayclaim right ofattorney fees. SeeBriefin Oppositionat
1-2. However, Intervenor already established fees whichare owedto it byRelator and
Intervenor use ofthe term prospective is simplyto denotethat specific damagesamount
has notyetbeenrealized in the present case. Therefore, an attorney charging lien is
appropriate at present.
Additionally, Respondent argumentthat the Motionto Intervene is premature is trivial.
BothRelator andRespondentfiled Motions for SummaryJudgmentwiththis Honorable Court
andall factual matters havebeenresolved. This case is at the precipice offinaljudgmentandthe
Motionto Intervene is appropriate at this stage to assert Intervenor right ofpriority overfunds
obtained in saidjudgment. This case also involves public records request dispute pursuantto
R.C. 149.43, whichprovides damages ofattorney fees underR.C. 149.43(C)(3)(b). Therefore,
Electronically Filed 12/07/2018 08:44 FILING OTHERTHAN MOTION / CA 16 104659 Confirmation Nbr. 1569085 CLAXY
finaljudgmentin favor ofRelatorwill allow damages for attorney fees whichIntervenorhas
asserted right in.
II. CONCLUSION
Basedonthe foregoing, Intervenorrespectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant
intervention in this case so that Intervenormayassert its attorney charging lien against any
prospectivejudgmentin this case, as well as settlement funds andapplicable proceeds that may
bepaidbyRespondentto Relator in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Patrick Vrobel_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
MatthewJohnMarkling (0068095)
Patrick Vrobel (0082832)
John T. Sulik, Jr. (0097577)
McGown Markling Co., L.P.A.
1894North Cleveland-Massillon Road
Akron, Ohio44333
Telephone: 1.330.670.0005
Facsimile: 1.330.670.0002
Email: mmarkling@mcgownmarkling.com
pvrobel@mcgownmarkling.com
sulik@mcgownmarkling.com
AttorneysforIntervenor
Electronically
Originaltitel
Matthew Markling reply to respondent City of Lakewood Brief in Opposition
Now comes Intervenor McGown Markling Co., L.P.A. Intervenor ), former legal counsel for Relator Brian J. Essi Relator ). The arguments asserted in Respondent City of Lakewood Respondent Brie…