Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: Paquin v. Capistrano Unified School District, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Deborah Paquin’s Motion for Order Declaring Lien Invalid
Plaintiff Deborah Paquin moves for an order declaring a lien asserted by Attorney Martin Jerisat and Bike Legal invalid. Jerisat opposes. Neither Bike Legal nor defendant Capistrano Unified School District filed an opposition. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Attorneys Jerisat, Frank Sariol, and Sariol Legal filed this lawsuit on plaintiff’s behalf on August 21, 2019. Attorney Frank Sariol substituted out as plaintiff’s counsel by means of a substitution of counsel filed on May 24, 2021. ROA 66. Plaintiff’s motion does not seek an order declaring the lien asserted by Sariol Legal invalid. Attorney Steven R. Young became plaintiff’s counsel of record by means of the same substitution of counsel. ROA 66. On July 20, 2021 plaintiff filed a Notice of Association Counsel stating plaintiff associated Jerisat as counsel with Young. ROA 77. On December 6, 2022 plaintiff filed a Notice of Disassociation of Counsel stating the “Law Offices of Martin Jerisat . . . is no longer representing plaintiff and has disassociated with the Law Offices of Steven R. Young . . . .” ROA 237. The court file does not contain a substitution of counsel substituting Jerisat out as plaintiff’s counsel, a motion to be relieved as plaintiff’s counsel filed by Jerisat, or an order granting a motion to be relieved as counsel.
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement on January 26, 2023. On February 14, 2023, Jerisat, Sariol Legal, and Bike Legal filed a “Notice of Lien for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.” ROA 337. The lien states that all parties should take notice that “Martin Jerisat, Sariol Legal, [and] Bike Legal, counsel of record for Plaintiff, hereby assert[ ] a lien against any recovery, settlement or judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiff in this action, to secure payment of legal services rendered and costs and expenses advanced on their [sic] behalf.”
Plaintiff seeks an order declaring the lien invalid. Plaintiff asserts Jerisat and Bike Legal’s lien claim is “unlawful” because neither Jerisat nor Bike Legal has a written fee agreement with plaintiff. Plaintiff states in her declaration that she never signed a fee agreement with Jerisat, the Law Offices of Martin Jerisat, or Bike Legal. Paquin Decl. ¶¶ 2-7. Plaintiff asserts Jerisat and Bike Legal should seek payment from plaintiff’s counsel, not plaintiff.
Jerisat asserts plaintiff signed a retention agreement with Sariol Legal, which Sariol Legal later assigned to Jerisat. Jerisat states he worked at Sariol Legal as an “of counsel,” and that he was “not a paid employee” of Sariol Legal. Jerisat Decl. ¶ 3. Jerisat has not presented any evidence plaintiff signed a written retention agreement with Sariol Legal, much less with him. He attaches as Exhibit B to his declaration a redacted portion of one page of a document entitled “Attorney-Client Contingent Fee Agreement” on “Frank R. Sariol, P.C. dba Sariol Legal Center” letterhead. Jerisat Decl. Ex. B. The visible portion of the redacted page states: “This Attorney-Client contingent fee contract (the ‘Agreement’) is the written fee contract that California law requires lawyers to have with their clients. It is between Frank R. Sariol of Sariol Legal Center (Attorney) and you, Deborah Paquin, (‘Client’).” Id. The visible portion of the page does not contain plaintiff’s signature, does not state Jerisat is a party to the agreement, and does not state any terms including, as relevant here, any term memorializing any attorney’s lien rights. In addition to his claim that he may enforce the written retention agreement plaintiff allegedly signed with Sariol Legal, Jerisat also argues he may assert a quantum meruit lien against plaintiff in the absence of a written retention agreement.
“Appellate courts have consistently held that the trial court in the underlying action has no jurisdiction to determine the existence or validity of an attorney lien on the judgment. [Citations.] The trial court does have fundamental jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties. Nevertheless, because the attorney is not a party to the underlying action and has no right to intervene, the trial court acts in excess of its jurisdiction when it purports to determine whether the attorney is entitled to foreclose a lien on the judgment. [Citations.] Nor can the court entertain a motion to terminate the lien. [Citation.] After the client obtains a judgment, the attorney must bring a separate, independent action against the client to establish the existence of the lien, to determine the amount of the lien, and to enforce it. [Citations.] An order within the underlying action purporting to affect an attorney's lien is void.” Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1173; see also id. at 1174 (“It is apparent that the trial court had no jurisdiction to determine the existence of an attorney's lien. Whether McCoy and the 11 plaintiffs had a direct contract and whether that contract impliedly created an attorney's lien are questions of fact to be decided in an independent action brought by McCoy to enforce his lien claim. [Citation.] They are not questions to be resolved in the underlying action.”); Brown v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 320, 329 (“Under Carroll and the numerous cases cited in Carroll, the trial court in the VMT action had no authority to determine the existence or validity of Brown's claimed lien on the proceeds of the VMT judgment. This means that while Brown was entitled to assert his lien claim against the proceeds of the VMT judgment by filing a notice of lien in the VMT action, the trial court had no power to determine in that action whether Brown's lien claim was valid or invalid. Thus, the trial court correctly denied Brown's motion for an order determining the amount and priority of his lien and directing VMT to pay all sums held in the blocked account to him until his lien was satisfied.”).
Neither party cites any authority holding that the court may properly determine in this case whether Jerisat and Bike Legal’s lien is valid or invalid. The above authorities hold that the court may not do so. Plaintiff’s motion for order declaring Jerisat and Bike Legal’s lien invalid is therefore denied.
Clerk to give notice.
Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement on January 26, 2023. No party has shown any reason this case should not be dismissed. The case is dismissed without prejudice. The court will issue a signed order of dismissal.
Clerk to give notice.