Legal Opinion
Hoxeng v. Topeka Broadcomm Inc.
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided December 27, 1996No. Civil Action No. 94-2284-GLRPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RUSHFELT, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is a Motion for Order Pursuant to K.S A. Sec. 7-109 (doc. 360) filed by Woner & Glenn, P.A. The movant law firm has represented plaintiff David Hoxeng in this action. It seeks an order to resolve a fee dispute between it and plaintiff.
The court declines to entertain and thus overrules the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Federal courts may have ancillary jurisdiction to resolve disputes involving attorneys’ fees with respect to work done in an underlying federal action. See McGill v. City of Ottawa, 773 F.Supp.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McGill v. City of OttawaDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1991
- Auxier v. Abitibi-Price Corp.District Court, D. Kansas · 1994
3Cited by5 opinions
- Alfred PERKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- Teitelbaum v. ChaterDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- Ryther v. KARE 11District Court, D. Minnesota · 1997
- GemCap Lending I, LLC v. Shane William PertlDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2022
- Leitzke v. CallahanDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1997