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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?