Trice v. Napoli Shkolnik PLLC

Background

Bridgette Trice, serving as trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Devyn Bolton, sued Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Hunter J. Shkolnik, Paul Napoli Law PLLC, and Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik LLP. The underlying dispute arose from legal work performed in Trice’s lawsuit against Toyota. Trice alleged that Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik made an unauthorized settlement demand and failed to disclose the full amount of Bolton’s medical expenses during discovery. After obtaining new counsel, Trice prevailed at trial and received a $5.5 million judgment.

After that trial, Napoli Shkolnik sought payment based on the reasonable value of its services in the Toyota litigation. The court denied that request, finding that Trice did not benefit from the firm’s representation and that the firm had not shown its requested fees were reasonable. The firm appealed, and the opinion states that the appeal remained pending in the Eighth Circuit.

Trice later filed this malpractice lawsuit, asserting negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Napoli Shkolnik filed a counterclaim seeking quantum meruit fees—the reasonable value of services provided—asserting that it was the assignee of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik’s right to compensation.

Motion and Arguments

Trice moved under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the counterclaim for failure to state a claim. She argued that the counterclaim was the same claim for the same fees against the same party in the same court. She relied on claim-splitting, duplicative litigation, collateral estoppel, and the first-to-file rule.

Napoli Shkolnik responded that it was not trying to litigate the fee claim in two forums. It said it wanted to preserve its position that the claim should be fully resolved either in the Toyota litigation after a remand or in this lawsuit. The firm argued that, if the court found Trice’s position had merit, the counterclaim should be stayed until the appeal ended rather than dismissed.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that dismissal was warranted because the counterclaim duplicated the firm’s quantum meruit claim in the Toyota litigation. In both matters, the firm sought the same fees from the same party under the same quantum meruit theory at the same time. The court relied on the principle of avoiding duplicative litigation.

The court rejected a stay. It concluded that there was no reason to keep the duplicative claim pending in this action because, if the Eighth Circuit reversed the earlier quantum meruit ruling, the firm could continue pursuing the fee claim in the Toyota litigation on remand. The court also concluded that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because there was no set of facts under which the firm should be allowed to pursue the same claim against the same party in two separate federal actions.

Disposition

The court granted Bridgette Trice’s motion to dismiss Napoli Shkolnik PLLC’s counterclaim. Napoli Shkolnik PLLC’s counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice. The ruling addressed the duplicative nature of the counterclaim rather than deciding the underlying malpractice claims.