Jeremy Friedman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEDHANIE BERNE; et al., No. 15-16952
Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02833-LB
JEREMY LOREN FRIEDMAN,
MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
and
BRENDA HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN
INC., DBA Kaiser Permanente; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
San Francisco, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and KATZMANN,***
International Trade Judge.
Attorney Jeremy Friedman appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s orders
denying him additional attorneys’ fees and costs from Kaiser Foundation Health
Plan, Inc. (“Kaiser”), defendant in the underlying litigation, and from his former
clients, Medhanie Berhe, Patsy Hardy, Evelynn Jennings, Rena Harrison, and
Michelle Mike (collectively, “clients”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we affirm.
1. The magistrate judge properly concluded that the Settlement
Agreement bars Friedman’s pursuit of additional fees and costs from Kaiser. In
the Settlement Agreement, Friedman personally agreed to “waive any claim and/or
right to attorneys’ fees of any kind” against Kaiser, and he acknowledged that the
fees allocated to him in the Settlement Agreement were “reasonable attorneys’ fees
pursuant to any statute under which Plaintiffs may have a right to recover
attorneys’ fees in connection with the Lawsuit.” Friedman is bound by this
commitment, and neither California law nor public policy requires a different
result. Cf. Flannery v. Prentice, 26 Cal. 4th 572, 580–81 (2001) (limiting its
holding to the “narrow question” of “whether a [client] may receive or keep the
***
The Honorable Gary S. Katzmann, Judge for the United States Court
of International Trade, sitting by designation.
2
proceedings of a fee award when she has neither agreed to pay her attorneys nor
obtained from them a waiver of payment”). Indeed, our controlling law
acknowledges that a favorable settlement for the client may sometimes come at the
expense of attorneys’ fees. See Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 729, 736–37, 741–
42 (1986).
Friedman further argues that it was an abuse of discretion for the magistrate
judge to decline to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over his fee dispute with Kaiser.
We do not reach this issue because Friedman’s claim lacks merit, and thus he
would not have prevailed even had the magistrate judge exercised ancillary
jurisdiction over this dispute. See K.C. ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963,
971 (9th Cir. 2014). Nor do we reach Friedman’s contention that Kaiser’s counsel
engaged in improper ex parte communications with his clients. This contention is
disputed and would not, in any event, render the Settlement Agreement
unenforceable absent additional evidence, not present here, that the
communications improperly influenced the clients’ decision to settle. See
Myerchin v. Family Benefits, Inc., 162 Cal. App. 4th 1526, 1538 (2008),
disapproved on another ground by Vill. Northridge Homeowners Ass’n v. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 50 Cal. 4th 913, 929 (2010).
2. The magistrate judge also correctly concluded that Friedman is not
entitled to any additional fees or costs from his clients. The attorney-client Fee
3
Agreement obligated Friedman’s clients to pay Friedman’s “lodestar fee” if the
clients “waive [Friedman’s] right to recover attorneys’ fees, costs or expenses” in a
settlement agreement. Although the clients instructed Friedman to sign the
Settlement Agreement, which waived Friedman’s right to collect additional fees
from Kaiser, the clients owe Friedman nothing further because, as the magistrate
judge meticulously determined, Friedman had already received his lodestar fee
through the settlement.
3. Nor did the magistrate judge err in determining that Friedman had
consented to her jurisdiction. Consent to proceed before a magistrate judge may be
express or implied. See Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 582 (2003); Wilhelm v.
Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). Although Friedman did not
expressly consent to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction by signing a consent form,
Friedman’s conduct implied consent. Friedman did not object when, in December
2013, the parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction for “all further
proceedings in this case.” And he freely availed himself of the magistrate judge’s
jurisdiction when he submitted his attorneys’ fees dispute to the court. It is, in fact,
Friedman who urges us to conclude here that it was an abuse of discretion for the
magistrate judge to decline to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over at least part of his
dispute.
AFFIRMED.
4