Kamel v. Best Buy Co., Inc.

Background

Walid Kamel, representing himself, sued Best Buy Co., Inc. for money damages arising from injuries he said resulted from a fall. After a jury trial, judgment was entered in Kamel’s favor for $250,000. The court later allowed Kamel to end Michael J. Prisco’s representation after the case was submitted to the jury.

Prisco then asked the court to establish a charging lien, which is a lawyer’s claim against a client’s recovery for unpaid fees and expenses. The request sought $48,534.26 in attorney’s fees and $3,488.48 in disbursements. Best Buy separately asked for permission to deposit funds with the court. The court had previously extended Kamel’s response deadline to January 17, 2025.

Request for another extension

Two days before the deadline, Kamel again sought more time. He asked for a deadline beginning 45 days after he received paper copies of the case documents from Prisco, stating that the documents provided electronically were inaccessible.

Prisco opposed the request. He stated that he had provided the documents through a Google Drive link, a ZIP folder, and a Dropbox link, and that he had tested the link and folder. He also offered to send Kamel a flash drive and explained how to open the ZIP file. The opinion states that Prisco said Kamel had told him he was receiving assistance from a legal-services organization.

Court’s reasoning and ruling

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), a court may extend a motion deadline for good cause when the request is made before the existing deadline expires. The court found that Kamel had not explained why the electronic files were inaccessible or why he needed the case files to respond to the motions. The court also noted that Prisco’s fee motion included numerous paper documents related to his representation of Kamel.

The court expressed concern that Kamel’s repeated extension requests might be causing delay and that further delay could prejudice Best Buy and Prisco. It also stated that Kamel would have to pay Prisco in advance for the costs of producing and delivering paper copies.

The court denied Kamel’s request to extend the response deadline until 45 days after he received paper copies. It granted a final extension until January 24, 2025, for Kamel to respond to Best Buy’s and Prisco’s motions. The court stated that if Kamel did not respond by that date, it would treat the motions as unopposed by him. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to the address Kamel provided and update the docket with that address.