American E Group LLC v. LiveWire Ergogenics Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:18-cv-03969
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In American E Group v. LiveWire Ergogenics, Judge Woods denied Joseph Paukman’s application seeking updates about a related arbitration.
Joseph Paukman’s request for updates about the arbitration was denied, and the motion at Docket No. 224 was terminated. The text does not state any further effect on the parties or the arbitration.
What happened
American E Group LLC v. LiveWire Ergogenics Inc. involved an application by Joseph Paukman, who said he was former counsel to Sunny Joseph Barkats and JSBarkats, PLLC. Paukman asked the court to require Ryan Whalen or his former client to keep him informed about an arbitration involving JS Barkats, PLLC, LiveWire Ergogenics Inc., and Bill Hodson.
Paukman said the arbitration was confidential and that the American Arbitration Association required court authorization or a party’s permission before sending him updates. He also argued that he had a New York attorney’s lien for unpaid legal work in the case and arbitration.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied the application and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket No. 224. The text does not give a reason for the denial or decide whether Paukman had an enforceable attorney’s lien.
The detailed version
- American E Group LLC v. LiveWire Ergogenics Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-03969
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 14, 2020
Background
Joseph Paukman submitted a letter application. He stated that he was formerly counsel to Sunny Joseph Barkats and JSBarkats, PLLC. He referred to a related arbitration involving JS Barkats, PLLC, LiveWire Ergogenics Inc., and Bill Hodson, identified as Case 01-19-0002-1040.
Paukman said the court had previously granted his motion to compel arbitration at Docket No. 223. He asked the court to require Ryan Whalen or his former client to keep him informed about the arbitration. According to the application, the American Arbitration Association told Paukman that the arbitration was confidential and that either a court order or permission from a party was required before it could provide him with updates.
Attorney’s-lien argument
Paukman also argued that his former law firm had a charging lien under New York Judiciary Law § 475. A charging lien is a legal claim that can allow an attorney to seek payment from a favorable result or proceeds obtained through the attorney’s work. Paukman asserted that he had performed legal work in the federal case and the arbitration, had received no payment, and had a lien identified at Docket No. 170.
The application cited New York cases discussing charging liens, including their possible enforcement in connection with arbitration. But the text does not show that the court ruled on whether Paukman or his firm held a valid lien, whether he was owed compensation, or whether anyone had to provide him with arbitration information.
Ruling
The court stated: “Application denied.” It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 224. The opinion does not provide an explanation for the denial. It therefore does not resolve the attorney-lien issues described in Paukman’s application.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.