WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) - Mass tort lawyers will get their wish to have their lawsuit against colleagues sent back to the court in which they filed it.
Washington, D.C., federal judge Beryl Alaine Howell on Aug. 1 sent the dispute back to D.C. Superior Court, finding a member of plaintiff LawCo (Richard Sackett) and defendant Cooper Law Firm (Barry Cooper) are both residents of Florida.
Thus, diversity jurisdiction does not exist and federal court is the wrong venue, Howell wrote.
"While this should end this matter in this Court, the parties persisted in acrimonious motion practice, requiring further judicial attention," Howell wrote, rejecting calls from LawCo for attorneys fees and sanctions and Cooper's argument that she should ignore Sackett's Florida residence because she shouldn't reward Sackett's behavior.
Cooper claimed LawCo was unlawfully registered as a professional limited liability company.
The suit says despite an agreement to pursue hernia mesh implant cases together, Cooper has failed to open a joint bank account.
LawCo says it is trying to prevent Cooper from depositing funds from their business venture in a separate account. The agreement at issue was entered into in August 2018, the suit says, to represent potential claimants in lawsuits against the makers and distributors of hernia mesh implants, as well as sales representatives who promoted their usage.
Section 6.4 agreement says the two shall "establish a bank account in the joint name of CLF and LawCo" to be used exclusively for finances for hernia mesh cases.
It took three years before LawCo "began efforts" to establish the account, by sending a $100 check to Cooper. But in May 2022, security concerns led LawCo to find a different bank.
Nine days later, Cooper said it would return that $100 check and no longer agreed to open a joint account.
An email from Celeste Brustowicz, managing partner of Cooper Law, said the company was concerned LawCo did not have a Louisiana attorney, though it was authorized to do business there.
"Was the account ever set up before as described in the [Joint Prosecution Agreement]?" Brustowicz wrote. "I think not as I cannot see any evidence of it on my end. To me, that is another reason not to have the account as our course of conduct showed it was unnecessary.
"The settlement funds will come to CLF as counsel of record. CLF will prepare settlement statements to be approved by LawCo and Local counsel in advance of distribution."
LawCo administrator Sackett responded: "Not acceptable. Cooper Laws failure to honor a long standing agreement which you have previously encouraged is the very reason why it is necessary."