BRZEG v. NATIONAL INDOOR RV CENTER, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
REBECCA BRZEG, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW
)
NATIONAL INDOOR RV CENTER, LLC, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCES AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
At the October 29, 2025 final pretrial conference, this matter was before the Court on
Motions to Withdraw filed by Kelly V. Milam and Morgan C. Klutho, then counsel for Defendant,
National Indoor RV Centers, LLC ("NIRVC") (Filing No. 67; Filing No. 75) and Plaintiff Rebecca
Brzeg's ("Brzeg") Motion for Attorney's Fees (Filing No. 121). The Court orally granted the
motions. (Filing No. 131). In this Order, the Court issues its findings of fact and conclusions of
law, which support granting each of the motions.
I. DISCUSSION
A. 	Motions to Withdraw
On September 8 and September 12, 2025, counsels Kelly Milam ("Milam") and Morgan
Klutho ("Klutho") with the firm Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani ("GRSM") moved to withdraw
their appearances on behalf NIRVC, asserting that "NIRVC terminated GRSM's representation of
it as a party on September 2, 2025." (Filing No. 75). NIRVC stated at the final pretrial conference
on October 29, 2025, that it withdrew its previous opposition to the motion and now has no
objection to the Court granting Milam's and Klutho's withdrawals. Accordingly, the Motions to
Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 132 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Withdraw were orally granted at the October 29, 2025 pretrial conference, and the appearances
of attorneys Kelly Milam and Morgan Klutho are withdrawn.
B. 	Plaintiff's Motion For Attorneys' Fees
On October 23, 2025, Brzeg moved the Court to award reasonable attorneys' fees for her
counsel's hours and fees reasonably expended in litigating the Motion to Enforce Settlement and
Settlement Agreement (Filing No. 62), including the motion requesting an award of attorneys' fees
(Filing No. 121). While Brzeg asks that Defendant NIRVC pay $15,610.00 in its reasonable
attorneys' fees to Plaintiff's counsel for litigating the Motion to Enforce Settlement, the Court
determines that the fees should be paid by NIRVC's former counsel, Milam and Klutho, and their
firm, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani.
In Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, NIRVC argues
the Court should not award attorneys' fee to Brzeg because the facts here do not support the
sanction of an attorneys' fee award (Filing No. 124 at 2–3). The Court is not persuaded. The district
court "has inherent authority to manage judicial proceedings and to regulate the conduct of those
appearing before it, and pursuant to that authority may impose appropriate sanctions to penalize
and discourage misconduct." Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Inc., 845 F.3d 772, 776 (7th Cir. 2016)
(citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46–50 (1991)). Sanctions imposed pursuant to the
court's inherent authority must be premised on a finding that the culpable party willfully abused
the judicial process or otherwise conducted the litigation in bad faith. Id.
The record in this case shows that GRSM's attorneys willfully abused the judicial process
and conducted the litigation in bad faith by not focusing efforts on this case, repeatedly
disregarding Court orders, and then attempting to settle the case with no authority to do so.
Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 132 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
1. 	GRSM's Lack of Focus and Disregard of Court Orders
Milam appeared on behalf of NIRVC on November 13, 2024 (Filing No. 25). On January
13, 2025, the Magistrate Judge set a settlement conference for April 17, 2025 (Filing No. 33). The
Order detailed required deadlines and procedures relating to the settlement conference and put
GRSM on notice that failure to comply with any of the Order's provisions may result in sanctions.
Id. at 4. On March 7, 2025, Milam failed to appear for a telephonic status conference, and was
ordered to show cause for her failure to appear (Filing No. 36). In her Response to Order to Show
Good Cause (Filing No. 37), filed on March 15, 2025, Milam admitted that her failure to appear
was "embarrassing" and apologized, but within weeks, she disregarded additional Court orders and
procedures.
On April 16, 2025, the Magistrate Judge ordered Milam and Klutho to show cause a second
time to address their efforts in this case (Filing No. 43). Among other things, NIRVC had not yet
responded to Brzeg's settlement demand, despite being ordered to do so twice (Filing No. 33;
Filing No. 35) and despite a March 15, 2025 email from defense counsel stating that they would
send an updated counteroffer "shortly" (Filing No. 43 at 2). Moreover, on April 15, 2025, per Court
order, the parties jointly reported their readiness for the settlement conference and that NIRVC
intended to begin the settlement conference with a monetary offer. Id. Less than two hours later,
defense counsel sent an ex parte communication to the Court that NIRVC would not be making a
monetary offer. Id. Following these incidents, the Magistrate Judge again put GRSM on notice that
sanctions may be considered for "inaccurate and misleading representations and for violations of
this Court's previous orders" and ordered lead defense counsel, Milam, to attend the settlement
conference in person with NIRVC. Id. at 2–3.
Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 132 Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
As the Magistrate Judge made clear, a settlement conference should be the culmination of
months of focused efforts (Filing No. 43). Milam undoubtedly did not focus her efforts in advance
of the settlement conference.1 Klutho entered her appearance on April 10, 2025, just one week
before the settlement conference (Filing No. 41). On April 17, 2025, Klutho appeared in person
for the settlement conference—but in violation of the Court's order, Milam did not.
On April 24, 2025, the Court issued another Order to Show Cause addressing counsel's
lack of preparation, inattention to settlement offers, and disregard of Court orders, including
Milam's failure to attend the settlement conference on April 17, 2025 (Filing No. 46). Not only did
Milam disregard the order to appear, but she also failed to notify the Court that she would be unable
to appear or request that her absence be excused. Id. As a result of Milam's failure to comply with
Court orders and lack of sufficient good cause in her Response to Show Cause (Filing No. 45), the
Court required Milam to file a verification that she reviewed the Court's Local Rules and all orders
entered in this case to discharge the show cause order (Filing No. 46 at 5). Milam attested to
reviewing the Local Rules and made an affirmative commitment to comply with this Court's orders
and directives (Filing No. 50; Filing No. 53).
2. 	Unauthorized Settlement
On September 11, 2025, in Defendant's Morion to Extend Deadline to file its brief in
support of opposition to plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement, GRSM's new counsel confirmed
that "Defendant never authorized any monetary settlement in this case". (Filing No. 71 at ¶5).
While GRSM's repeated failures to follow Court orders and focus on the case may have been poor
judgment or negligence, participating in settlement negotiations when counsel knew it had no
1 NIRVC's internal counsel attested that she did not hear from Milam from the time she was introduced as lead counsel
on December 10, 2024, until April 10, 2025, and that she had her first call ever with Milam and Klutho on April 14,
2025—only three days before the settlement conference (Filing No. 76-1 at 4).
Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 132 Filed 10/31/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
authority to do so is willful bad conduct. Such conduct wasted not only the Court's time, but also
that of opposing counsel. According to NIRVC, it never agreed to any settlement, or even
settlement negotiations, with monetary offers. (See Filing No. 76-1; Filing No. 76-2). In fact,
internal counsel for NIRVC declared in an email (dated August 5, 2025) with Milam copied, "[y]ou
(and others) may discuss numbers and potential liability all you want, but NIRVC will not consent
to settle for even $1." (Filing No. 76-1 at 9.) The record shows that since November 14, 2023, at
the latest, NIRVC had consistently told GRSM that it would not offer or agree to any monetary
settlement amount. Id. at 3 (quoting email to GRSM from November 14, 2023: "We are not
interested in settling this matter.").
Despite knowing that she did not have authority to engage in settlement negotiations,
Klutho represented, by her actions, that GRSM had its client's authority to engage in settlement
negotiations, actively engaged in settlement negotiations, and represented to Brzeg that the case
was settled. Plaintiff's counsel had no reason to question Klutho's authority to discuss a monetary
resolution or to believe that her communications leading up to the purported settlement
agreement—memorialized in email communications—were unauthorized or contrary to her
client's directives (Filing No. 62-3). GRSM sent an email without consent or authority to Brzeg,
stating "[p]er our conversation, we are settled for $[X]." Id. Such conduct clearly shows an intent
to deceive or gross negligence. This conduct resulted in Plaintiff's attorneys filing a Motion to
Enforce the Settlement and incurring significant attorneys' fees in seeking to enforce the
settlement.
As the Court admonished Milam and Klutho at the pretrial conference on October 29, 2025,
if GRSM did not have its client's authority to settle this case, its attorneys should have advised
Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 132 Filed 10/31/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
opposing counsel and the Magistrate Judge of that and should have not engaged in settlement
conferences or settlement negotiations at all.
NIRVC itself has suggested the Court consider sanctions against GRSM, including "paying
the purported settlement amount the GRSM Lawyers agreed to without Defendant's knowledge or
consent and against its repeated, express authority to never settle the case." (Filing No. 69 at 4).
NIRVC points out that GRSM's attorneys' conduct violates the Indiana Rules of Professional
Conduct: "A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter." Id. at 3 (citing
Ind. R. Prof. Cond. 1.2(a) (emphasis added)).
Despite professed embarrassment2 for past misconduct, neither GRSM nor its attorneys,
Milam and Klutho, apologized to the Court or the parties for their repeated misconduct, including
their unauthorized settlement negotiations and monetary settlement offers. The Motions to
Withdraw are devoid of any explanation or apology. (See Filing No. 67; Filing No. 75). Neither
Milam or Klutho showed remorse or offered an apology to the Court or the parties at the October
29, 2025 final pretrial conference, which Milam and Klutho attended via videoconference.3
Sanctions in the form of reasonable attorneys' fees are appropriate for GRSM, Milam, and
Klutho's willful bad conduct and blatant indifference towards the Court's and the parties' resources.
3. 	Reasonableness of Rates and Hours
"A reasonable hourly rate is based on the local market rate for the attorney's services."
Montanez v. Simon, 755 F.3d 547, 553 (7th Cir. 2014). An attorney's "market rate is the rate that
2 In addition to Milam's declared "embarrassment" to this Court for her failure to appear, just last week, GRSM
professed it was "profoundly embarrassed" for its attorneys' misconduct involving artificial intelligence in another
U.S. District Court. Gordon Rees Skully Mansukhani Response to Order to Show Cause, In the Matter of: Jackson
Hospital & Clinic, Inc., et al., No. 25-30256-CLF (October 23, 2025).
3 Milam did not even see fit to wear a suit jacket, and Klutho appeared only two minutes before the conference began,
after Milam (at the request of the Courtroom Deputy) called Klutho to ensure she would be attending.
Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 132 Filed 10/31/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
lawyers of similar ability and experience in the community normally charge their paying clients
for the type of work in question." Bankston v. State of Ill., 60 F.3d 1249, 1256 (7th Cir. 1995)
(quotation omitted).
The Court finds that Plaintiff's counsel's hourly rates are reasonable and consistent with the
hourly rates charged by other practitioners with similar experience. The Court also finds that the
hours expended on this matter are reasonable considering the misrepresentations made by
Defendant's counsel on which Brzeg relied. Plaintiff's counsel provided detailed accounting of the
hours worked in their declarations (Filing No. 122-1; Filing No. 122-2).
For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees was orally granted at the October
29, 2025 pretrial conference, and the Court orders that Milam and Klutho's firm, Gordon Rees
Scully Mansukhani, pay $15,610.00 as reasonable attorneys' fees to Plaintiff's counsel for
litigating the Motion to Enforce Settlement and Settlement Agreement (Filing No. 62).
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained orally by the Court at the October 29, 2025 pretrial conference
and in this Order, the Motions to Withdraw Appearance filed by Kelly V. Milam and Morgan C.
Klutho (Filing No. 67; Filing No. 75) are GRANTED. Appearances by Attorneys Kelly Milam
and Morgan Klutho on behalf of NIRVC are hereby withdrawn. The Clerk is directed to
terminate their appearances on the docket.
Further, for the reasons explained orally by the Court at the October 29, 2025 pretrial
conference and in this Order, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees is GRANTED (Filing No.
121), and Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani is ORDERED to pay $15,610.00 as reasonable
attorneys' fees to Plaintiff's counsel for litigating the Motion to Enforce Settlement and
Settlement Agreement. Payment is due within thirty (30) days of this Order.
Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 132 Filed 10/31/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
SO ORDERED.
Date: 	10/31/2025
Distribution:
Tonya J. Bond
Plews Shadley Racher Braun LLP
tbond@psrb.com
Morgan Klutho
Gordon Ress Scully Mansukhani
mklutho@grsm.com
Shannon L. Melton
Wilson Melton, LLC
smelton@wilsonmelton.com
Kelly V. Milam
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
kmilam@grsm.com
Kyle D. Steinbrueck
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN LLP
ksteinbrueck@psrb.com
Bradley L. Wilson
Wilson Melton, LLC
bwilson@wilsonmelton.com
Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 132 Filed 10/31/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>