Marri Furk v. Orange-Ulster Boces
- Nelson Roman
- 7:15-cv-06594
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Furk v. Orange-Ulster Boces, Judge Roman granted Plaintiff’s requests to accept her cross-motion as opposition and set a schedule for a new motion.
Marri Furk and her counsel, former counsel Michael D. Diederich, Jr., and counsel Bernard Weinreb; the order also limited access to specified filings for the identified parties and Court personnel.
What happened
In Furk v. Orange-Ulster Boces, former counsel Michael D. Diederich, Jr. asked the court to strike Marri Furk’s opposition to his request to enforce a charging lien. Furk’s counsel asked the court to treat her cross-motion as her opposition and allow her to file a new motion.
The court granted Furk’s requests. It accepted the cross-motion as her opposition, allowed her to serve a proposed motion on October 18, 2021, and set deadlines for Diederich’s opposition, Furk’s reply, and filing the motion papers. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate three motions and limit access to two documents.
Judge Nelson S. Roman did not decide whether Diederich was entitled to additional fees or whether Furk was entitled to a refund. The order addressed the filing schedule and document access.
The detailed version
- Marri Furk v. Orange-Ulster Boces · No. 7:15-cv-06594
- Nelson Roman
- Sept. 17, 2021
Background
Michael D. Diederich, Jr. identified himself as Plaintiff Marri Furk’s former counsel and sought enforcement of a charging lien, which is a lawyer’s claimed right to receive payment from a recovery in a case. Diederich asked the Court to strike Furk’s opposition papers, arguing that they improperly included a cross-motion and references to ethics complaints. He also raised an issue about not receiving electronic filing notifications.
Furk’s counsel, Bernard Weinreb, asked the Court to accept Furk’s cross-motion as her opposition to Diederich’s application. Alternatively, he asked for permission to file the cross-motion as a separate new motion. Furk’s letters stated that the arguments supporting the cross-motion were also intended to oppose Diederich’s request for additional fees.
Court’s Action
The Court granted Furk’s requests. It accepted the cross-motion as her opposition to Diederich’s motion and permitted Furk to serve a proposed motion under this schedule:
- Furk’s motion: served, but not filed, by October 18, 2021; - Diederich’s opposition: served, but not filed, by November 17, 2021; - Furk’s reply: served by December 2, 2021; and - All motion papers: filed on December 2, 2021.
The parties were also directed to provide two courtesy copies of their motion papers when served. The Court directed the Clerk to terminate the motions listed at Electronic Court Filing Nos. 98, 99, and 106. It further directed that Furk’s memorandum opposing Diederich’s charging-lien application and Bernard Weinreb’s declaration be placed at the “Selected Parties” viewing level, allowing access only to Plaintiff’s counsel, Diederich, and Court personnel.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The endorsement did not decide whether Diederich was entitled to additional attorney’s fees, whether his fee agreement was enforceable, whether Furk fired him for cause, or whether Furk was entitled to a refund. It also did not decide the parties’ arguments about disclosure of ethics complaints. The order was a procedural ruling about the treatment and timing of motion papers and access to documents.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the Court addressed filing procedure, briefing deadlines, termination of docketed motions, and document access without deciding the underlying charging-lien or fee dispute.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.