United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
CHARLES B. GOODWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Phillip Scott Spratt's Motion for
Attorney's Fees (Doc. No. 93) in which Defendant Spratt
requests attorney's fees pursuant to a Legal Services
Agreement between Defendant Spratt and Plaintiff Alberta Rose
Josephine Jones. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, responded by
filing a document titled “Reply Brief, Motion Hearing
and Discovery Request by Petitioner in Response to Defendant
Phillip Scott Spratt's Motion for Attorney Fees”
(Doc. No. 94),  which the Court liberally construes as a
Response to Defendant Spratt's Motion.
initial matter, the Court has thoroughly reviewed the
parties' submissions and finds that neither a hearing nor
discovery is warranted in this matter. The parties have had
an opportunity for adversary submissions on the motion in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and Local
Civil Rule 54.2. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d); LCvR
54.2. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's request
for additional proceedings on the motion.
Court determines that, based on the plain language of the
Legal Services Agreement relied on by Defendant Spratt, the
motion for attorney's fees should be denied. Under the
terms of that Agreement, Defendant Spratt agreed to provide
legal services to Plaintiff in relation to “unpaid
insurance coverage for home damage that occurred on or about
December 13, 2015” at Plaintiff's property in
Pacific Grove, California. Mot. Att'y Fees Ex. 2 (Doc.
No. 93-2) at 2. The Agreement also stipulated Plaintiff's
obligation to pay attorney's fees for the legal services
Defendant Spratt performed under the Agreement. Id.
instant lawsuit, Plaintiff asserted claims against several
defendants in relation to her insurance claim. Plaintiff
articulated her causes of action against Defendant Spratt as
fraud, constructive fraud, and negligent misrepresentation
for his alleged “failure to pursue a proper claim in
[Plaintiff's] interest” against the insurance
company, as well as deceptive acts and practices for his
“fail[ure] to comply with Oklahoma General Business
laws when signing” the Legal Services Agreement. Am.
Compl. (Doc. No. 11) at 11, 13, 19. Plaintiff sought money
damages in relation to the claims asserted against Defendant
Spratt. See Id. at 20. On July 20, 2018, the Court
dismissed the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Order of July 20, 2018 (Doc.
No. 91). An appeal of this determination is currently
pending. See Notice of Appeal (Doc. No.
Motion for Attorney's Fees, Defendant Spratt contends
that he is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in this
matter under paragraph 19 of the Legal Services Agreement,
ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS IN ACTION ON AGREEMENT. The
prevailing party in any action or proceeding to enforce any
provision of this agreement will be awarded reasonable
attorney's fees and costs incurred in that action or
proceeding or in efforts to negotiate the matter.
Att'y Fees Ex. 2, at 5; see Mot. Att'y Fees
at 2. Defendant Spratt interprets this provision broadly as
“provid[ing] for attorney fees and costs in actions
relating to” the Legal Services Agreement. Mot.
Att'y Fees at 2. The Court disagrees.
any reasonable construction, the scope of paragraph 19 is
limited on its face to actions or proceedings to
enforce a provision of the Legal Services Agreement.
Plaintiff did not seek enforcement or performance of the
Agreement in this action. Rather, she sought money damages
against Defendant Spratt for his alleged failure to perform
his obligations under the Agreement. See Compl. at
6-7. As Plaintiff does not seek to coerce Defendant
Spratt's performance of his contractual duties or seek to
enforce any other provision of the Agreement in this lawsuit,
paragraph 19 of the Legal Services Agreement is inapplicable.
Thus, the Court finds that, even assuming the Legal Services
Agreement is a valid contract between the parties, it does
not provide a basis for the Court to find Plaintiff liable
for Defendant Spratt's reasonable attorney's fees
incurred in this action.
THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Spratt's Motion for
Attorney's Fees (Doc. No. 93) is DENIED.
ORDERED this 6th day of March, 2019.
 Plaintiff additionally filed a
supplement to her Response containing a page erroneously
omitted from an exhibit to her Response. Doc. No. 95. Though
this document was entered on the case docket as a motion, the
Court liberally construes this submission as a Supplement to