Estate of Maurice Monk v. County

Background

Pointer & Buelna, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff Nia’ Amore Monk, filed a Notice of Lien stating that it claimed $99,874 in legal costs from settlement or judgment proceeds to be paid to Plaintiff Kyse Monk. Kyse Monk moved to strike or expunge the notice, arguing that it was an improper attempt to impose expenses on a non-client and threatened his recovery. The court determined the motion without oral argument and vacated the scheduled hearing.

Parties’ Cost-Sharing Dispute

The record included a 2023 email exchange in which Adante Pointer and Jerome Clay discussed splitting expert fees and joint litigation costs equally. The opposition and reply indicated that the alleged cost-sharing understanding was unexecuted and disputed. The court expressly made no finding about whether a valid agreement existed.

Court’s Analysis

The court recognized that federal rules do not expressly authorize striking non-pleadings, but that a district court has inherent authority to manage its docket and control what appears in its records. It nevertheless concluded that the lien dispute was not properly before it. Relying on California authority, the court explained that an attorney claiming a lien must bring a separate, independent state-court action to establish the lien’s existence, determine its amount, and enforce it. The court also stated that an order in the underlying action purporting to affect the lien would be invalid.

Because it lacked jurisdiction to consider the lien issue, and because the notice had no effect on this case, the court declined to use its discretion to strike the notice.

Disposition

Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied Kyse Monk’s motion to strike the Notice of Lien. The order did not decide whether the lien was valid, whether the alleged cost-sharing agreement existed, or how much—if anything—was owed.