Allen v. USA Hoist Company, Inc.
This text of Allen v. USA Hoist Company, Inc. (Allen v. USA Hoist Company, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:20-cv-00411-RJC-DCK
MICHAEL ALLEN as Administrator for the Estate of Juventino Mata Hernandez,
Plaintiff, ORDER APPROVIING vs. WRONGFUL DEATH SETTLEMENT USA HOIST COMPANY, INC.; CAROLINA ELEVATOR SERVICE, INC.; GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY and GILBANE, INC.,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Petition of the Plaintiff, and with the consent of the Defendants, to approve a wrongful death settlement in this matter (Doc. No. 71). It appearing to the Court, for the reasons set forth in the Petition, after consideration of the arguments of counsel, and the approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Administrator of the Estate and the mother of the minor child, that the Petition should be granted. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Settlement Agreement attached to the Petition as Exhibit A, is approved.
2. That the Court will create an irrevocable trust for the minor child as described in the Petition and will place said trust under seal. 3. From the settlement amount, the Court approves the following fees and expenses be paid from the settlement proceeds: Total Recovery $2,100,000.00 Less Attorney fees (40% ) -840,000.00 Less reimbursement of costs -58,079.39 Less repayment of WC lien -$98,056.03 NET SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS $1,103,864.58 4. The net proceeds of the settlement shall be paid into the Irrevocable Trust for the minor sole beneficiary. 5. The Court finds that the attorney fees are reasonable and customary given the time and labor expended; the skill required; the customary fee for like work; the experience or ability of the attorneys; the novelty and difficulty of the questions of law; the adequacy of the representation; the difficulty of the problems faced by the attorney, especially any unusual difficulties; the type of case; and the result obtained. United Labs., Inc. v. Kuykendall, 335 N.C. 183, 195, 437 S.E.2d 374, 381-82 (1993); see also N.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5. SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 31, 2022
Otef 4 Cr Of Robert J. Conrad, Jr. ‘ey United States District Judge “ee
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Allen v. USA Hoist Company, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-usa-hoist-company-inc-ncwd-2022.