Preview:

Sieverding et al v. Murphy Desmond LLC

Doc. 2

Case: 3:08-cv-00252-bbc

Document #: 2

Filed: 05/07/2008

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DAVID and KAY SIEVERDING, Plaintiffs, v. MURPHY DESMOND, LLC. Defendant..

OPINION AND ORDER 08-cv-0252-bbc

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiffs David and Kay Sieverding filed this action on May 2, 2008, and paid the filing fee. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), I have reviewed plaintiffs' complaint to determine whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction over their claim. From the complaint, I understand plaintiffs to allege the following facts.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT Plaintiffs David and Kay Sieverding are a married couple and residents of Wisconsin. Defendant Murphy Desmond sells professional liability insurance to six law firms in Colorado. Four of the law firms entered appearances in case no. 02-C-1950, an action

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 3:08-cv-00252-bbc

Document #: 2

Filed: 05/07/2008

Page 2 of 5

plaintiffs filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. In that case, plaintiffs raised a politically controversial claim that bar associations were contributing to lawyer misconduct and crimes. The federal judge in the case, Judge Nottingham, awarded attorney fees to defendants "without any rule 11 c 6 orders" and without any motion from the defendants, in violation of the District of Colorado local rules. Judge Nottingham's award of attorney fees violated "rule 52a and rule 54c" because it does not state the facts and law supporting a sanction. No reason was given for the sanctions. One of the law firms, Feldman, Nagel & Oliphant, contracted with defendant Murphy Desmond to collect $8,900 for services performed by Mr. Oliphant even though he appeared in the Colorado case pro se. Faegre & Benson contracted with defendant Murphy Desmond to collect $12,368 for attorney bills paid by Mutual Insurance Limited of Bermuda. Lettunich & Vanderbloemen contracted with Murphy Desmond to collect $11,196 from plaintiffs even though Lettunich & Vanderbloemen did not appear in the action at all. Hall & Evans contracted with Murphy Desmond to collect $21,547 for services performed by David Brougham, who was a defendant in the action and appeared pro se. Wilson & Steele contracted with Murphy Desmond to collect $11, 996 from plaintiffs. McConnell, Siderius, Fleischner, Houghtaling & Craigmile, LLC contracted with Murphy Desmond to collect $35,857 from plaintiffs. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit did not acknowledge the

2

Case: 3:08-cv-00252-bbc

Document #: 2

Filed: 05/07/2008

Page 3 of 5

information concerning attorney fees that plaintiffs presented in their appeal. The court did not allow conferences or oral hearings with plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandamus was denied by the United States Supreme Court.

OPINION Federal courts can hear only those cases that Congress empowers them to hear. Generally, federal courts have the power to hear two types of cases: (1) cases in which the plaintiff alleges a violation of his or her constitutional rights or rights established under federal law and (2) cases in which a citizen of one state alleges a violation of his or her rights established under state law by a citizen of another state and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C.

Download 37559.pdf

Wisconsin Law