# Jenkins v. St. Petersburg College Board of Trustees

> District Court, M.D. Florida · March 4, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10109567

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** March 4, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10109567

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

JON D. JENKINS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:18-cv-2718-MSS-SPF

ST. PETERSBURG COLLEGE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Defendant.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion
for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees Incurred by Pro Bono Counsel (“Johanson Law”)
and to Adjudicate Charging Lien and Allocate Claims for Attorney’s Fees, (Dkt. 65),
and Swift, Isringhaus, & Dubbed, P.A.’s (“Swift Law”) Motion to Adjudicate and
Enforce Charging Lien and Response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, (Dkt. 67),
and Plaintiff’s Response in opposition to Swift Law’s Motion. (Dkt. 72) On January
4, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be granted, and
Swift Law’s charging lien be discharged. (Dkt. 87) On January 18, 2022, Swift Law
timely filed an objection to the R&R, (Dkt. 88), and on February 15, 2022, Plaintiff
filed a response to the objection. (Dkt. 91)
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the Magistrate Judge's
report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d

732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge “shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which

specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d
507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence
of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual
findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and

recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal
conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v.
Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
On review, the Court finds that the R&R should be adopted to the extent that it
finds that Swift Law’s charging lien is enforceable. The Court declines to adopt the

R&R to the extent that it does not undertake a substantive quantum meruit analysis as
to the value of services rendered by either counsel in this matter. The Court finds that
it would be an abuse of its discretion to impose a forfeiture of all fees where Swift Law
expressly requested leave to supplement the record if the Court determined to consider
a fee award under a quantum meruit analysis. This is further compelled because did
Johanson Law did not seek such a default and agreed that the Court should apportion
fees as between Johanson Law and Swift Law. (Dkt. 65 at 7) Johanson Law’s Motion
states: “Plaintiff requests that the Court . . . (2) adjudicate Swift Law’s charging lien

and allocate any valid fee claims among the Plaintiff’s counsel in accordance with
applicable law.” Id.
As a further complication, the record reflects that Johanson Law also failed to
provide any documentation to permit such a quantum meruit analysis of the fees being
sought. Thus, there is no record justification for awarding the full fees deposited in the

registry of the Court to Johanson Law. Specifically, the Court has not seen the fee
agreement entered at the inception of the appointment of Johanson or any
documentation of the hours expended or fees incurred by Johanson Law.
CONCLUSION

Consequently, Plaintiff’s Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees Incurred
by Pro Bono Counsel and to Adjudicate Charging Lien and Allocate Claims for
Attorney’s Fees, (Dkt. 65), and Swift, Isringhaus, & Dubbed, P.A.’s (“Swift Law”)
Motion to Adjudicate and Enforce Charging Lien, (Dkt. 67), are GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART as explained above.

Counsel Erik Johanson is DIRECTED to file the contemporaneously entered
fee agreement and documentation of hours incurred with detailed descriptions of
services rendered within seven (7) days of the entry of this Order. The Court will,
thereafter, make a quantum meruit assessment of the proper allocation of the fees held
in the registry of the Court as between respective counsel, if appropriate.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 3rd day of March 2022.
(4 yy, ae jf ff
J /
MARYS SCRIVEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Any Unrepresented Person

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10109567. Public record. Not legal advice.