Minott v. Google Inc.

Charging Liens Only Partly Granted; Arbitration Rights Retention Bars Fixed Lien Amount

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION & ORDER Before the Court is a dispute in which Plaintiff’s former attorneys are seeking to assert a “charging lien” on this matter for attorneys’ fees under New York state law. For the reasons that follow, The Washington Law Firm PLLC and The Spiggle Law Firm are both entitled to charging liens under New York Judiciary Law §475. The Washington Law Firm PLLC’s motion to fix a charging lien is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $22,400. The Spiggle Law Firm has asserted its right under its retainer agreement with Plaintiff to arbitrate any fee disputes, and as such, The Spiggle Law Firm’s motion for an order fixing the specific amount of the charging lien is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FACTS Plaintiff Tiffany Minott (“Plaintiff” or “Minott”) commenced this action against her former employer, Google LLC (“Defendant”), by filing a complaint on March 5, 2024. See Dkt. No. 1. Due to filing deficiencies, Plaintiff re-filed the complaint on March 7, 2024. See Complaint, Dkt. No. 5 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff asserted that Defendant had discriminated against her in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. See id.

75-164. The Complaint was filed by one of Plaintiff’s former attorneys, Francisco Mundaca of The Spiggle Law Firm (“TSLF”), who also signed the Complaint. See id. Plaintiff had retained a different law firm, The Washington Law Firm PLLC (“WLF”), since December 1, 2022, to represent her with respect to her employment discrimination claims against Defendant; WLF had investigated Plaintiff’s allegations, participated in pre-litigation discussions with Defendant, represented Plaintiff before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) — including by drafting an EEOC Charge — and drafted a complaint on behalf of Plaintiff pleading a claim of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §1981. See Ex A. to WLF’s Mem., Dkt. No. 17-1

Minott v. Google Inc.

Charging Liens Only Partly Granted; Arbitration Rights Retention Bars Fixed Lien Amount

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal