Feagins et al v. Trump Organization et al

Filing 206

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Court GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 196 ). The Court finds that it has jurisdiction to rule on the Petition for Compromise of Minors' Claims. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Petition, (ECF No. 191 ). Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/9/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Case 2:11-cv-01121-GMN-GWF Document 206 Filed 03/09/21 Page 1 of 4

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

KEVIN FEAGINS, et al.,
4
5

Plaintiffs,
vs.

6

OTIS ELEVATOR CO., et al.,
7
8
9

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:11-cv-01121-GMN-GWF
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 196), of the

10

Court’s Minute Order, (ECF No. 193), which denied Plaintiffs’ Petition to Compromise

11

Minors’ Claims, (ECF No. 191), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On April 24, 2019, the

12

Court issued a Minute Order to Show Cause why the Court retained subject matter jurisdiction

13

to rule on the Petition. (See Min. Order, ECF No. 200). Plaintiffs filed a Response, (ECF No.

14

201), to the Minute Order and an Errata, (ECF No. 202), to the Response. Defendant Otis

15

Elevator Co. filed a Joinder, (ECF No. 203), to the Response.

16

The present Motion concerns whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant a Petition for

17

Compromise of Minors’ Claims that the parties agreed to following the Court’s entry of

18

Judgment. After a three-day trial, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Andre

19

Feagins against Defendant Otis Elevator Co. in the amount of $17,500. (See Am. Clerk’s J.,

20

ECF No. 170). Plaintiffs moved for new trial, arguing it was manifestly unjust that all

21

Plaintiffs injured in the subject elevator accident were not able to recover damages. (See Mot.

22

New Trial, ECF No. 176). Following the Court’s denial of the Motion, Plaintiffs appealed.

23

(Order, ECF No. 179); (Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 184). With the appeal pending, Plaintiffs

24

filed the underlying Petition for Compromise of Minors’ Claims, representing the parties’

25

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:11-cv-01121-GMN-GWF Document 206 Filed 03/09/21 Page 2 of 4

1

settlement. (See Pet., ECF No. 191). After the parties filed the Petition before this Court, the

2

Circuit remanded the case for consideration of the Petition. (USCA Order, ECF No. 194).

3

In its denial of the Petition, the Court, citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

4

511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994), explained that it lacked ancillary jurisdiction over the parties’

5

settlement agreement, and the parties needed to demonstrate an independent basis for the

6

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (See Min. Order, ECF No. 193). The Motion for

7

Reconsideration and the Responses to the Minute Order to Show Cause assert that the Court

8

has jurisdiction because the Ninth Circuit has remanded this case in light of the parties’

9

settlement. (Mot. Reconsider 2:19–22, ECF No. 196); (Resp. OSC 2:24–3:8). They contend

10

that the Court retains jurisdiction over the Petition because the conditional settlement was

11

obtained while the appeal was pending. (Id.). The Court agrees.

12

In National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Seafirst Corp., 891 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1989), the

13

Ninth Circuit discussed whether parties may condition settlement on vacatur of judgment when

14

an appeal is pending from the district court’s judgment. Although a motion to vacate is not at

15

issue in this case, the Circuit’s analysis is instructive. When discussing scenarios wherein the

16

parties to an action have reached settlement “after final judgment was entered, but before

17

appeal was complete,” the Circuit presupposed ancillary jurisdiction over settlement. Id. at 767

18

(citing Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. W. Conference of Teamsters, 686 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1982).

19

Here, the posture of the case is the same. Additionally, the Circuit’s rules foresee dismissal of

20

appeals as a mechanism to facilitate settlement of disputes, a goal which would be defeated if

21

the Court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to rule on the Petition. (See 9th Cir. Ct. App. R. 33.1)

22

(describing the mediation process to facilitate settlement of disputes on appeal); (see also Fed.

23

R. App. P. 33) (allowing the court to enter an order controlling the course of proceedings or

24

implementing a settlement agreement following settlement conference).

25

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:11-cv-01121-GMN-GWF Document 206 Filed 03/09/21 Page 3 of 4

1

The Court may consider the merits of the Petition as it retains jurisdiction over the

2

dispute. Unlike in Kokkonen, which the Court previously relied upon, the case was not

3

voluntarily dismissed by parties who later sought the Court’s enforcement of a settlement

4

agreement after the action had closed. The dispute over settlement enforcement is more akin to

5

a separate action for breach of contract. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 375 (“Moreover, the doctrine of

6

ancillary jurisdiction does not apply, since the facts to be determined with regard to the alleged

7

breach of contract are quite separate from the facts to be determined in the principal suit, and

8

automatic jurisdiction over such contracts is in no way essential to the conduct of federal-court

9

business.”). Here, in contrast, the case continued to proceed on appeal, and now this Court is

10

tasked with whether to grant the Petition that procured an agreement to resolve the case

11

following remand. The circumstances would be different if a party came to the Court seeking

12

to enforce a settlement agreement previously entered.

13

Thus, the Court grants reconsideration of its denial of the Petition for lack of subject

14

matter jurisdiction. The Court finds good cause to grant the Petition for Compromise of

15

Minors’ Claims, as the result for each minor Plaintiff is more favorable to that received at trial.

16

Accordingly,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration,

18

(ECF No. 196). The Court finds that it has jurisdiction to rule on the Petition for Compromise

19

of Minors’ Claims.

20
21
22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS in part
and DENIES in part the Petition, (ECF No. 191), consistent with the below instructions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that GOOD CAUSE appears for the granting of

23

Plaintiffs’ Petition to Compromise Minors’ Claims as to the minor children Andre Feagins in

24

the total amount of $30,727.31, and Jonathan Feagins in the total amount of $13,227.31,

25

subtracting equally from such respective total amounts 1/6th of the total attorneys fees and

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:11-cv-01121-GMN-GWF Document 206 Filed 03/09/21 Page 4 of 4

1

costs ($4,166.67) to Bradley Paul Elley, Esq., approved hereby, such that the net compromised

2

amount to be deposited into a blocked bank account at a federally charted bank within the State

3

of Texas fully insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) for Andre

4

Feagins’s trust account is $26,560.64, and into Jonathan Feagins’s blocked federally charted

5

bank within the State of Texas bank account fully insured by the FDIC trust account is

6

$9,060.64.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the net compromised amount deposited and interest,

8

if any, in each of said minor’s blocked bank accounts shall be automatically unblocked without

9

further order of this Court upon the attainment of Andre Feagins’ 18th birthday on July 24,

10

2021, to make use of such funds on deposit as he shall see fit, and that the net compromised

11

amount deposited and interest, if any, shall be automatically unblocked without further order of

12

this Court upon the attainment of Jonathan Feagins’ 18th birthday on January 18, 2024, to make

13

use of such funds on deposit as he shall see fit.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joshua Feagins, having attained the age of majority

15

on his 18th birthday on January 5, 2020, renders moot this Court’s consideration of the petition

16

to compromise of his former claim as a minor. Therefore, the Petition with respect to Joshua

17

Feagins is hereby DENIED.

18

9
Dated this ___ day of March, 2021.

19
20
21
22

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

23
24
25

Page 4 of 4