Patel et al v. Amonett

Filing 31

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/3/17. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION
RAMESHBHAI PATEL, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES O. AMONETT,
Defendant.
VINODKUMAR PATEL,
individually and on behalf
of minor child S.V.P., and
JYOTSNA PATEL,

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:15cv829-MHT
(WO)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES O. AMONETT,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:15cv830-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
These two lawsuits, in which a proposed settlement has
been reached, arise out of a car accident.
Vinodkumar
15-year-old

Patel,
child

individually
S.V.P.;

and

Jyotsna

on

Plaintiffs are
behalf

Patel,

the

of
wife

his
of

Vinodkumar Patel and mother of S.V.P.; and four of their
relatives.

Defendant is James O. Amonett.

Jurisdiction is

proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship).
These cases are now before the court for consideration
and approval of the full and final settlement of the claims
of

S.V.P.

The

court’s

consideration

and

approval

is

necessary because a minor child will receive a portion of
the settlement.

Pursuant to the court’s order, S.V.P.’s

interests are additionally and independently represented by
guardian ad litem Karen Laneaux.

Based on the pleadings

and the representations made on the record, the court will
approve the settlement.
The factual and procedural background of this case may
be

summarized

as

follows:

In

August

2013,

a

minivan

carrying S.V.P. and six of his family members on Interstate
85

in

Macon

County,

Alabama

was

hit

vehicle allegedly driven by Amonett.
varying degrees of injuries.
ambulance

to

a

hospital

in

in

the

rear

by

a

Plaintiffs suffered

S.V.P. was transported by
Montgomery,

Alabama,

but

no

serious injuries were diagnosed.

After experiencing some

back

a

and

neck

pain,

he

visited

chiropractor

on

two

occasions, the last time six days after the accident.

His

pain soon subsided, and he experienced no further injuries

2

or effects of the accident.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed

these two lawsuits against Amonett in state court, alleging
that his negligence caused the accident.

Amonett removed

the actions to this court, where they were consolidated.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Amonett
will pay the aggregate sum of $ 23,500.00 to satisfy all
possible

claims

by

S.V.P.

From

that

amount,

Allstate

Insurance Company will receive $ 7,000.00 for payments made
on behalf of S.V.P.; Baptist Medical Center will receive
$ 4,108.50

for

treatment;

S.V.P.’s

reimbursement
transport

outstanding

of

father

payment

S.V.P.;

and

charges
will
for

S.V.P.’s

receive
the

S.V.P.’s

$ 6,800.00 for attorneys’ fees.

for

$ 1,098.90

ambulance

counsel

medical

will

used

for
to

receive

Those payments leave a net

recovery of $ 4,492.60 for S.V.P.
The court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and
is familiar with the background of this lawsuit.

The court

heard testimony from S.V.P. as well as his parents who all
testified that they believe the settlement is in S.V.P.’s
best interests.
caveat.

The guardian ad litem concurred with one

The court received testimony about the relatively

3

minimal injuries sustained by S.V.P., his brief subsequent
medical care, and the lack of any lingering injuries, pain
or effects of the accident.

The court concludes that the

aggregate sum paid to satisfy all possible claims by S.V.P.
likely equals or exceeds the amount of damages S.V.P. would
be likely to be recover had these cases gone to trial.
Because

plaintiffs’

counsel

represented

all

seven

plaintiffs in this litigation, the court was concerned that
counsel had a “sum zero” conflict in deciding how to divide
the settlement proceeds among the plaintiffs--that is, “one
plaintiff’s

gain

could

be

another

plaintiff's

loss.”

Johnson v. United States, 2016 WL 482034, at *2 (M.D. Ala.
2016) (Thompson, J.).

However, counsel represented that

the aggregate sum to satisfy the claim on behalf of S.V.P.
was negotiated prior to and completely separately from the
amounts for claims of the adult plaintiffs.

In addition,

any concerns about a potential conflict are allayed by the
guardian ad litem’s independent and thoughtful assessment
of this litigation and the evidence and representations
presented to the court.

See id. at *3 (“Based on the

guardian ad litem’s independent and thoughtful assessment

4

of this litigation as well as all the evidence and other
representations

presented

to

the

court,

the[

zero

sum]

concerns are allayed.”).
The parties have proposed that the net recovery for
S.V.P. would be paid to his father for S.V.P.’s use and
benefit, which comports with Alabama law.
Code

§ 26-2A-6.

The

amount

will

be

See 1975 Ala.

deposited

into

an

interest-bearing account until S.V.P., who is now 15 years
old,

requires

the

funds

for

his

college

education.

According to the guardian ad litem, S.V.P. reported that he
had no immediate need for the funds and agreed that he
should

save

testified

his

proceeds

consistently

obligation

to

reserve

for

about
the

college.
his

amount

S.V.P.’s

understanding
for

the

father
his

use

and

that

sole

of

the

benefit of S.V.P.
Although
settlement
concern

is

that

the

guardian

ad

in

S.V.P.’s

best

the

amount

of

litem

believes

interest,

attorneys’

she

fees

expressed

exceeds

the

“net” recovery for S.V.P. and suggested that counsel should
consider

reducing

their

fees.

While

this

concern

is

important, it must also be emphasized that S.V.P.’s total

5

recovery
than

the

($ 16,700.00)
amount

of

is

actually

attorneys’

significantly

fees

greater

($ 6,800.00).

The

relatively low “net” recovery ($ 4,492.60) is driven by the
particular circumstances of this accident, namely that it
occurred outside the Patels’ home state, leading to high
medical bills despite the relatively minimal injuries.
that sense, this case is unique.

In

In addition, the fees are

reasonable under the factors set forth in Peebles v. Miley,
439 So.2d 137 (Ala. 1983), and the fees have been duly
earned by counsel.
significant

The representation of S.V.P. required

learning,

skill,

and

labor

for

its

proper

discharge; the attorneys achieved a successful result, that
is,

a

favorable

settlement

in

light

of

the

relatively

minimal injuries; the attorneys and plaintiffs agreed to a
contingency-fee arrangement, which is customary for such
cases in this jurisdiction; and the attorneys’ time devoted
to this case could have been profitably spent on other
matters.

Moreover, counsel have reduced their recovery

from the 40 % contingency fee arrangement to 28.9 % of the
aggregate sum; waived approximately $ 650.00 in costs; and

6

obtained reductions in payments owed to third parties to
increase S.V.P.’s net recovery.*
The court is satisfied that the terms and provisions of
this settlement are understood and agreed to by S.V.P. and
his parents.

Based on the record and testimony, as set

forth

the

above,

provisions
interests

of
of

court

the
S.V.P.

finds

proposed
and

are

that

all

settlement
fair,

under the circumstances of this case.

the

are

just,

in

and

terms
the

and
best

reasonable

Therefore, the court

will approve the proposed settlement agreement as to S.V.P.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 3rd day of March, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*
Based on counsel’s representations, the court
conditions its approval of the settlement on counsel’s
continued best efforts to obtain further reductions in
liabilities owed on behalf of S.V.P. to Allstate Insurance
Company and Baptist Medical Center, which, if successful,
would further increase S.V.P.’s net recovery.