John Haymond; Hochberg, Napoli, Diamond, P.c v. MARVIN LUNDY Hochberg, Napoli, Diamond

* Honorable Joseph E. Irenas, Senior United States District Judge for the District
of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 03-3889, 04-1879
JOHN HAYMOND;
HOCHBERG, NAPOLI, DIAMOND, P.C.
v.
MARVIN LUNDY
Hochberg, Napoli, Diamond,
Appellant
On Appeal from Final Orders of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 99-cv-05048)
District Judge: Honorable Norma L. Shapiro
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a): January 13, 2005
Before: ROTH and CHERTOFF, Circuit Judges, and IRENAS,* Senior District Judge.
(Filed: February 10, 2005)
OPINION

-- 1 of 4 --

1Haymond & Lundy’s practice was largely made up of medical malpractice and
other personal injury cases. John Haymond and Martin Lundy were the only partners in
the firm, which also employed several associates, including Robert Hochberg, Andrew
Napoli, and Scott Diamond.
2Haymond is no longer associated with the Pennsylvania firm, which is now
known as Hochberg Napoli Diamond, PC. Haymond’s split from the firm is the subject
of ongoing litigation. The Connecticut firm is now known as the Haymond Law Firm.
IRENAS, Senior United States District Judge.
This case arises from the dissolution of the law firm of Haymond & Lundy, LLP,1
an event which has led to complex and seemingly interminable litigation in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania since the filing of the original complaint in 1999. See Haymond
v. Lundy, Civ. No. 99-5048 (E.D. Pa. filed Oct. 12, 1999). After the firm split, Martin
Lundy and John Haymond each formed new law practices, taking some of the cases and
other assets from the partnership to their new offices. Lundy formed the Law Offices of
Martin Lundy. Haymond was a partner in two new firms sharing the same name,
Haymond Napoli Diamond, PC, one located in Connecticut (“HND-CT”) and one in
Pennsylvania (“HND-Pa”).2
As a result of the litigation between Haymond and Lundy, the District Court
determined that all fees collected in cases originated at Haymond & Lundy were property
of the partners of the firm, notwithstanding the partners’ successor firms may have
worked the cases through to resolution. Haymond v. Lundy, 117 F. Supp. 2d 371 (E.D.
Pa. 2001). The District Court appointed a receiver and ordered, pursuant to the

-- 2 of 4 --

3The Honorable James T. Giles, to whom the matter was transferred after HND-Pa
filed a petition for a Writ of Mandamus to compel Judge Shapiro to release the M-CARE
checks, issued an order on February 19, 2003, ordering the Clerk to release the Roberts
check to Andrew Napoli, to release the sum of $233,333.34 payable to Rosa Porchea to
Napoli, and to hold the remaining $116,666.66 in escrow.
Partnership Agreement, that Lundy was entitled to sixty percent of any fees collected
from the firm’s cases, and Haymond was to receive forty percent. Id. at 385.
Shortly before Haymond & Lundy was dissolved, the firm opened two new
medical malpractice cases on behalf of clients Cynthia Roberts and Rosa Porchea. After
the split, both clients elected to retain HND-Pa to represent them. The Roberts case
settled in 2002 and the Porchea case settled in 2001. Pennsylvania’s Medical Care
Availability and Reduction of Error Fund (“M-CARE”) was responsible for providing a
portion of the settlement amount in each case. Knowing that these fees were the subject
of a dispute between Lundy and HND-Pa, M-CARE sent a $275,000 check for the
Roberts settlement and a $350,000 check for Porchea to Judge Shapiro on December 30,
2002.
HND-Pa appeals from several orders which address the distribution of the M-
CARE funds and the entitlement of the various parties to the attorney fees earned from
the settlements of the Roberts and Porchea cases. Judge Shapiro’s September 2, 2003,
Order determined that Lundy was entitled to sixty percent of the fees from the Roberts
and Porchea settlements, or $267,411.08, but awarded Lundy only $116,666.66, the
amount the court held in escrow.3 Haymond v. Lundy, No. 99-5048 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 2,
2003) (order distributing net fees from Roberts and Porchea settlements). The District

-- 3 of 4 --

4On March 19, 2004, Judge Shapiro denied HND-Pa’s Motion to Alter or Amend
the Judgment of February 3, 2004.
Court’s Order of February 3, 2004, granted Lundy a judgment in the amount of
$150,744.42, the difference between the amount in escrow and Lundy’s full entitlement.4
Haymond v. Lundy, No. 99-5048 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2004) (order entering judgment for
Lundy). The core of HND-Pa’s appeal is its contention that it should not be bound by
these orders because it is not a party to the litigation nor is it subject to the District
Court’s jurisdiction.
A thorough review of the record convinces us that the District Court correctly dealt
with the funds from the Roberts and Porchea settlements. At a hearing held on February
5, 2003, before Chief Judge Giles, HND-Pa consented to the jurisdiction of the District
Court to decide “all issues arising from the fee disputes in the settled Roberts and Porchea
cases and to enter such orders and judgments as the court deems just and proper under the
law and evidence adduced at any hearing.” Haymond v. Lundy, No. 99-5048 (E.D. Pa.
Feb. 19, 2003) (order memorializing holding of District Court at February 5, 2003,
hearing). Therefore, the Orders issued by Judge Shapiro addressing the distribution of the
M-CARE payments and her determination that Lundy was entitled to additional monies
are consistent with HND-Pa’s consent. We find no legal error in the District Court’s
Orders.

-- 4 of 4 --