J.G. v. Rick Simons et al

Filing 63

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on April 9, 2013. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

) Case No. 11-4319 SC
)
J.G., by his Guardian Ad Litem, ) ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT
JENNA GONZALES,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
RICK SIMONS; FURTADO, JASPOVICE )
& SIMONS; SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS )
d/b/a SUTTER MEDICAL CENTER OF )
SANTA ROSE; and DOES 1 through )
20,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

17
18

On March 22, 2013, the Court held a hearing in the above-

19

captioned matter during which, among other things, the Court

20

requested briefing on a recent Supreme Court case, an explanation

21

of Plaintiff's counsel's requested attorneys' fees, and further

22

briefing on the amount of the Medi-Cal lien reimbursable from the

23

settlement amount.

24

Plaintiff's counsel has substantially and timely complied with

25

all of these requests.

26

Plaintiff's counsel submit a one-page breakdown of the different

27

amounts that will be paid out of the settlement: e.g., of the

28

$1,025,000 settlement amount, exactly how much will go toward

However, the Court further asks that

1

attorneys' fees, costs, annuities, and so forth.

2

should be a very simple description of where the money in this

3

settlement will go.

4

This document

Separately, the Court has received Plaintiff's briefs in

5

further support of his petition and for the Court's final

6

determination of the Medi-Cal lien.

7

Plaintiff's concerns that the settlement money be disbursed as

8

quickly as possible and that the amount of the Medi-Cal lien be

9

determined separately, since Plaintiff and the California

The Court is cognizant of

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Department of Health Care Services still dispute what proportion of

11

the settlement may be fairly allocated to past medical expenses.

12

While the Court agrees that the Supreme Court case Arkansas

13

Department of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268

14

(2006), and its progeny are the correct cases to apply on this

15

issue, the Court declines to approve the settlement in any fashion

16

until Plaintiff submits a full and final calculation of all money

17

to be paid from the settlement fund, including the Medi-Cal lien.

18

Whether the lien amount is to be determined in negotiations or by

19

the Court after the issue is fully briefed is for the parties to

20

decide.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: April 9, 2013

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

2