Kamel v. Best Buy Co., Inc.

Background

Best Buy Co., Inc. asked for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67 to deposit $250,000 with the court in satisfaction of a judgment entered in favor of Walid Kamel. The request arose from a dispute between Kamel and his former counsel, Michael Prisco, over attorney’s fees. Prisco asked the court to set a charging lien—a claim by an attorney against funds recovered in a case—for $48,534.26 in fees and $3,488.48 in disbursements, totaling $52,022.74, and to direct Best Buy to issue that amount to the Law Office of Michael James Prisco PLLC.

Kamel, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed an opposition to Prisco’s fee request. He did not oppose Best Buy’s Rule 67 motion. After previously extending Kamel’s response deadline and warning that the motions could be treated as unopposed if he did not respond, the court treated Best Buy’s motion as unopposed.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 67 allows a party, with notice to the other parties and the court’s permission, to deposit all or part of money involved in a judgment with the court. The court explained that this procedure provides a place to safeguard disputed funds while a legal dispute is resolved. Because the pending dispute concerned Prisco’s claimed fees, the court found it appropriate to accept the disputed amount of $52,022.74.

The court declined to accept the remainder of the $250,000 Best Buy sought to deposit because the attorney-fee dispute was the only dispute pending before it.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted Best Buy’s Rule 67 motion in part. Best Buy may deposit $52,022.74 into the court’s registry, following instructions from the Clerk of Court. The money will be held pending resolution of Prisco’s fee motion and a further court order about distribution. The order did not decide Prisco’s request for a charging lien or the amount of fees owed. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 56 and mail the order to Kamel.