Wadsworth v. Unum Group (CONSENT)

Filing 12

(STRICKEN AS ERRONEOUS FILING ENTRY) OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/15/14. (scn, ) Modified on 4/15/2014 (scn, ).

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

C. W., a minor, who sues by )
and through Mary Amanda
)
Weed, her mother and next )
friend; and MARY AMANDA
)
WEED, individually,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHRISTY LINDSAY,
)
)
Defendant.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:13cv139-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
This is a dog-bite case. Plaintiff Mary Amanda Weed,
on behalf of herself and her 11-year-old daughter, has
sued defendant Christy Lindsay.

The jurisdiction of the

court has been invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332
(diversity of citizenship).

This matter is before the

court on the parties' motion to approve their settlement
to the extent it is between Weed's daughter and Lindsay.
The motion will be granted.

During an Easter Egg Hunt in 2012 at her parents
home, Weed’s daughter C.W. was bitten on the face by a
dog owned by Lindsay.
this

lawsuit

C.W. and her mother then brought

claiming

that

the

bite

resulted

from

Lindsay’s negligence and wantonness, namely that Lindsay
had notice of dangerous propensities in the dog and that
she did not exercise reasonable care to prevent the dog
from biting someone.
of

any

dangerous

Lindsay denies that she had notice
propensity

and

negligently or wantonly in any way.

that

she

acted

The parties later

notified the court of a settlement of C.W.’s and her
mother’s claims against Lindsay, and the court appointed
Karen Laneaux to be guardian ad litem for C.W.
Alabama law requires that a court hold a fairness
hearing before a minor plaintiff’s case may be settled.
Largo v. Hayes By and Through Nesbitt, 534 So.2d 1101,
1105 (Ala. 1988). This is a rule of substantive law,
which

must

diversity.

be

applied

by

federal

courts

sitting

in

Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1266 (11th

2

Cir. 2001).

In order for the settlement to be binding on

the minor, the hearing must involve “‘examination or
investigation into the facts.’” Abernathy v. Colbert
Cnty. Hosp. Bd., 388 So. 2d 1207, 1209 (Ala. 1980)
(quoting
The

42 Am.Jur.2d Infants § 47 (1978)).
court,

therefore,

conducted

an

on-the-record

fairness hearing to determine whether to approve the
settlement

agreement

between

C.W.

and

Lindsay.

In

attendance were C.W.’s guardian ad litem, C.W. and Weed’s
counsel, and Lindsay’s counsel.
the

pleadings

detailed

oral

in

this

case,

explanation

The court has reviewed
heard

of

the

in

open

positions

court
of

a

all

parties, and is sufficiently familiar with the background
surrounding this action, including the nature of the
claims of liability and the various defenses raised by
Lindsay.
questions

The

court

surrounding

finds

that

liability

there
and

the

are

factual

appropriate

amount of damages, so as to create substantial issues as
to whether C.W. and her mother are entitled to recover

3

against Lindsay for the dog bite.

The court also credits

testimony from Weed that she believed the settlement is
fair and in C.W.’s best interests.

The guardian ad litem

has further represented that the settlement is fair and
in C.W.’s best interests.
Based on the above evidence and representations, the
court

further

finds,

and

holds,

that

the

terms

and

provisions of this settlement are understood and agreed
to by Weed and Lindsay, that they are fair, just, and
reasonable under the circumstances involved in this case,
and that they are in the best interests of C.W.

The

court will grant the parties’ motion to approve the
settlement to the extent it is between C.W. and Lindsay.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 15th day of April, 2014.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE