St Clair et al v. Nellcor Puritan Bennett LLC et al

Filing 80

ORDER setting a Final Settlement Approval Hearing on 4/30/12 at 2:00 p.m. ORDER that Plaintiffs' counsel must prepare and file a motion for approval of settlement and attorneys' fees and litigation expenses under seal on or before 4/6/12. O RDER that Defendant and its insurance company must file a Notice of Deposit and deposit the entire settlement funds on or before 4/6/12. ORDER vacating the final pretrial conference set for 4/30/12 and the jury trial scheduled to commence on 5/7/12 (see attached pdf for complete information). Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 3/12/12. (TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Lisa St. Clair and Richard Poulin,)
individually and as parents and guardians)
)
of H.P., their minor child,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
Nellcor Puritan Bennett LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)

No. CV-10-1275-PHX-LOA
ORDER

15
The Court received an emailed letter, signed by the parties’ counsel, advising that the
16
parties participated in a successful mediation on February 29, 2012, and settled this case.

17
A district court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or

18
settlement of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected, even

19
if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad

20
litem. Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983).

21
On the Court’s own motion, after informally consulting with both counsel for a
22
mutually agreeable date and time, and consistent with a district court’s “special duty” to
23
conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of H.P.,
24
a minor, the Court will set a final settlement approval hearing. K.T. v. Ramos, 2012 WL
25
443732 (D.Ariz. February 13, 2012) (quoting Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181

26
(9th Cir. 2011)).

27
28

1
2

IT IS ORDERED setting a Final Settlement Approval Hearing before the
undersigned Magistrate Judge on Monday, April 30, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel and Plaintiffs Lisa St. Clair

4

and Richard Poulin must be physically present at the Final Settlement Approval Hearing.

5

Counsel for H.P. must be prepared to answer the Court’s questions why the parties’

6

settlement for the agreed-upon amounts for H.P. and her parents are in the minor’s best

7

interests, why the Court should approve the settlement, and why counsels’ fees and expenses

8

are reasonable and appropriate, and how H.P.’s money will be managed in her best interests

9

in the future. The minor is invited, but not required, to attend the Final Settlement Approval

10

Hearing.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel must prepare and file a motion

12

for approval of settlement and attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses under seal on or before

13

Friday, April 6, 2012, which sets forth with specificity the following:

14
15

1. the total amount and exact division of the settlement funds amongst the Plaintiffs
in present value;

16

2. a detailed discussion of the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees

17

and litigation expenses, including a discussion of the eight factors to consider in determining

18

the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Ethical Rule (“ER”) 1.5, Arizona Rules of

19

Professional Conduct. See, Matter of Conservatorship of Fallers, 181 Ariz. 227, 889 P.2d

20

20 (Az.Ct.App. 1994); In re Guardianship of Sleeth, 226 Ariz. 171, 244 P.3d 1169

21

(Az.Ct.App. 2010); see also, Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 186 (Tenn.

22

2011) (“[w]e hold that no single factor found within [ER] 1.5 merits special emphasis over

23

the other factors in determining a reasonable fee in cases involving a minor, and we decline

24

to add other factors. Instead, the trial court may conclude that certain factors merit greater

25

weight under the unique circumstances of a particular case”). Plaintiffs’ counsel shall

26

provide as exhibits a complete copy of Plaintiffs’ fee agreement and an affidavit of

27

Plaintiffs’ counsel, containing the information required by LRCiv 54.2(c), (d)(2), (3)- (4)(A)-

28
-2-

1

(D), and (5)(e)(1)-(31).

2
3

3. how Plaintiffs’ fees and costs will be fairly apportioned among his three clients;
and

4

4. Plaintiffs’ proposed plan to establish a Maricopa County Superior Court

5

guardianship for H.P. and appointment of an appropriate guardian pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-

6

5311 to, among others, authorize and approve H.P.’s necessary medical, surgical or other

7

professional care and treatment, purchase of durable medical goods, A.R.S. § 14-5209(B)-

8

(C); give consents or approvals necessary for H.P.’s care, comfort and maintenance, A.R.S.

9

§ 14-5312(A)-(B); protect, monitor, and preserve H.P.’s net res of the settlement funds and

10

other property2; and perform such other procedural and substantive duties in H.P.’s best

11

interests as allowed by Arizona law.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant and its insurance company must file

13

a Notice of Deposit and deposit the entire settlement funds into the District of Arizona’s

14

Court Registry Investment System (“CRIS”3) on or before Friday, April 6, 2012. See,

15

LRCiv 67.1.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

If Plaintiffs’ counsel did not keep track of his time because he represents Plaintiffs
on a contingency fee basis only, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide his best estimate of the time
he/they spent working on the case as if counsel were paid on an hourly basis.
2

“Guardians have the duty to make broad care decisions for the wards in their care
and are required to care for their wards’ personal effects, including their [property].” In re
Conservatorship for Geake, 2008 WL 2352481, * 2 (Az.Ct.App. June 5, 2008) (citing
A.R.S. §§ 14-5209, -5312 (2005)).
3

Under the federal CRIS program, money deposited in every district court case is
pooled with the money on deposit with the Treasury, with a credit back to all district courts
with funds in CRIS, which is used to purchase Government Account Series securities
through the Bureau of Public Debt. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2041, 2045; Six Mexican Workers v.
Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1308 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1990). CRIS operates on a
weekly cycle tied to a Thursday maturity date of these securities. CRIS will deduct a 10%
fee from the amount of interest earned weekly. The 10% fee covers the cost to the court of
managing the investments. See, § 920.50, Registry Fees, Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 13,
Ch. 9; LRCiv 67.1(c).
-3-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the final pretrial conference set for

2

Monday, April 30, 2012 and the jury trial scheduled to commence on Monday, May 7, 2012.

3

Dated this 12th day of March, 2012.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-