Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 15, 2024

IN RE: NAVIDEA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LITIGATION

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-01578
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In re Navidea Biopharmaceuticals Litigation: Judge Caproni granted an application to adjourn the August 19 status conference to August 21.

Who this affects

Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Macrophage Therapeutics, Inc., Thompson Hine LLP, Mintz Gold LLP, and the other participants in the status conference were affected by the adjournment and the court’s direction that the conference would be held in person.

What happened

In re Navidea Biopharmaceuticals Litigation concerns a request by Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. and Macrophage Therapeutics, Inc. to postpone a scheduled status conference. Counsel cited difficulties obtaining litigation files and a personal conflict involving a memorial service.

The request also asked the court to require Thompson Hine LLP and Mintz Gold LLP to explain why they should not be ordered to transfer litigation files to new counsel. Alternatively, counsel asked to attend remotely. Counsel for the defendant opposed postponement but did not oppose a telephone conference.

Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application and moved the conference from August 19, 2024, to August 21, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 443. The court said the conference would not be held by telephone and that the attorneys’ liens would be discussed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
IN RE: NAVIDEA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LITIGATION · No. 1:19-cv-01578
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Aug. 15, 2024

Background

Counsel for Plaintiff Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. and Third-Party Defendant Macrophage Therapeutics, Inc. asked the court to postpone a status conference scheduled for August 19, 2024. Counsel stated that prior counsel had not yet transferred the litigation files and that a law partner’s memorial service was scheduled for August 19. The filing also discussed a dispute over alleged unpaid legal fees and the possible withholding of case files by Thompson Hine LLP and Mintz Gold LLP.

The filing argued that the firms should not withhold files for fees connected to other cases or general corporate work. It cited legal principles concerning an attorney’s retaining lien, which is an attorney’s right to hold a client’s papers until fees are paid, and argued that the court could order the files transferred in appropriate circumstances. The filing stated that the litigation had lasted five years, that Navidea had paid between $1 million and $2 million to its counsel in connection with the litigation, and that total fees paid by Navidea and Macrophage in connection with this case and a Delaware case exceeded $2.6 million.

Requests and Response

Navidea and Macrophage asked the court to order Thompson Hine and Mintz Gold to appear and show why they should not be required to turn over litigation files to new counsel. They also asked the court to adjourn the status conference until the files were transferred. Alternatively, counsel requested permission to participate by telephone or videoconference.

Counsel for the defendant opposed postponing the conference but did not oppose conducting it by telephone. The opinion does not state that Thompson Hine or Mintz Gold filed a response to the request or that the court decided whether either firm had a valid lien.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application. The court adjourned the conference to Wednesday, August 21, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse. The court expressly stated that it would not conduct the conference by telephone. It further stated that the topic of the attorneys’ liens would be discussed at the conference. The order therefore addressed the scheduling request and did not decide the underlying dispute over the litigation files or attorneys’ liens.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.