Kamel v. Best Buy Co., Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-00033
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kamel v. Best Buy, Judge Rochon denied an indefinite extension but granted Walid Kamel two weeks to respond to his former lawyer’s fee motion.
Walid Kamel received a deadline extension but must respond to Michael J. Prisco’s fee motion by January 17, 2025; the order did not decide the fee request itself.
What happened
In Kamel v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Walid Kamel, representing himself, asked for more time to respond to his former lawyer Michael J. Prisco’s request for attorney’s fees until Kamel’s appeal was resolved. The request concerned fees and expenses for legal work in Kamel’s personal-injury case against Best Buy.
The court said a pending appeal does not prevent a district court from deciding related fee matters. It therefore rejected Kamel’s request for an extension lasting until the appeal ended. The court also considered that Kamel had asked for more time before the original deadline expired.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied the request for an indefinite extension but granted Kamel a two-week extension, giving him until January 17, 2025, to respond to Prisco’s fee motion.
The detailed version
- Kamel v. Best Buy Co., Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00033
- Rochon
- Jan. 3, 2025
Background
Walid Kamel, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Best Buy Co., Inc. for monetary damages arising from personal injuries after a fall. A jury trial took place from November 18 through November 20, 2024. Judgment was entered for Kamel for $250,000 based on the jury’s liability verdict and the parties’ stipulation about damages.
After the case was submitted to the jury, Kamel asked to replace his lawyer, Michael J. Prisco, and the court granted that request. On December 11, 2024, Prisco moved for an order setting an attorney’s charging lien. A charging lien is a lawyer’s claimed right to be paid from a client’s recovery. Prisco sought $48,534.26 in attorney’s fees and $3,488.48 in expenses for work performed for Kamel.
The court directed Kamel and Best Buy to respond to the fee motion by December 26, 2024. On December 23, Kamel asked to extend his response deadline until after his appeal was resolved, stating that addressing financial matters while the case was on appeal would be premature.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a district court retains authority over related matters, including attorney’s-fee claims, even while an appeal is pending. The court therefore rejected Kamel’s request for an indefinite extension tied to the end of the appeal.
The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), which allows a court to extend a deadline for motion papers when the request is made before the deadline expires and there is good cause. Because Kamel made his request before the deadline, the court granted a limited extension so he could respond to the fee motion on its merits.
Disposition
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Kamel’s request to extend his response deadline until after resolution of the appeal. The court granted an extension of time to January 17, 2025, for Kamel to respond to Prisco’s motion for fees. The order did not decide whether Prisco was entitled to the requested fees or expenses.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.