Carroll v. Oakley Trucking, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina
DecidedDecember 13, 2019
Docket5:17-cv-00357
StatusUnknown

This text of Carroll v. Oakley Trucking, Inc. (Carroll v. Oakley Trucking, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carroll v. Oakley Trucking, Inc., (E.D.N.C. 2019).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:17-CV-00357-BR

WENDY G. CARROLL, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS ANTHONY CARROLL, DECEASED,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

OAKLEY TRUCKING, INC., AND THAD AUSTIN PITTMAN,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to approve the settlement of this wrongful death action brought as the result of the death of Thomas Anthony Carroll (“Carroll”). (DE # 84.) The court held a hearing on 3 December 2019 to determine the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement agreement and accompanying attorneys’ fees. Defendants consent to the settlement agreement. (See DE # 87.) All parties consent to the entry of this order. (See DE # 86.) I. Background 1. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 4 May 2016 at Case Farms Feed Mill (“Case Farms”) in Mount Olive, North Carolina, where Carroll, deceased, was an employee and where defendant Thad Pittman had delivered a load of salt that day. As the two men were leaving Case Farms, defendant Pittman’s tractor- trailer collided with Carroll’s motorcycle and resulted in Carroll’s death. 2. Carroll left four children as his heirs. At the time of his death, three of his children were minors. Only one child, S.C., is now a minor. 3. Wendy G. Carroll, as Administrator of Carroll’s Estate, instituted this action to recover damages for the wrongful death of Carroll. 4. All parties to this action are properly represented and before the court. No questions exist as to the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties. This court has jurisdiction over the subject

matter of the action as well as the parties. 5. Wendy G. Carroll, mother of the minor, was appointed by this court as Guardian Ad Litem for the minor child. (DE # 83.) 6. After a three-day bench trial in November 2018, this court entered judgment awarding plaintiff $1,551,767 plus prejudgment interest of 8%, for a total amount of $1,774,293.25, including recoverable costs. (See DE # 61.) 7. Defendants appealed the verdict and judgment. (DE # 62.) 8. After both parties briefed the case on appeal, the parties reached a settlement agreement in the amount of $1,425,000. The specific terms of this agreement are set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release, (DE # 87), and incorporated herein by reference.

9. This matter is now before the court for approval pursuant to Local Civil Rule 17.1 and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-13-3(a)(23). 10. Plaintiff retained Leonard Jernigan and Kristina Thompson of The Jernigan Law Firm and Guy W. Crabtree of Crabtree Carpenter, PLLC (collectively “attorneys”) to represent the Estate in this action. 11. Attorneys represented the Estate on a contingent fee basis, plus litigation-related costs. A copy of that fee agreement is attached to plaintiff’s motion. (DE # 84-5.) 12. The fee agreement provides, in part, that the contingent attorney fee charged for attorneys’ representation of the Estate would be as follows: A fee equal to 25% of the gross recovery (including costs and liens) received if the case is settled within 120 days of the date of this agreement [which was September 8, 2016]; or

A fee of 33.33% of the gross recovery (including costs and liens) if the case is settled thereafter and no later than one week after the mediated settlement conference; or

A fee of 40% of the gross recovery (including costs and liens) if the case is resolved by settlement or verdict at any time thereafter; or

A fee equal to 45% of the gross recovery (including costs and liens) if an appeal is taken from the lower court by any party, or if any legal action after judgment has to be brought to collect the judgment or any portion thereof, or a second trial is necessary.

13. Attorneys have advanced litigation-related costs of $105,154.28 in this matter. 14. To aid in the prosecution of the case, attorneys retained the accident reconstruction firm Accident Research Specialist Cary, N.C., to assist in the investigation of the collision, consult with attorneys, prepare computer simulations and exhibits, and offer expert testimony concerning the accident at both deposition and trial. 15. A breakdown of the costs advanced in this matter by Crabtree Carpenter, PLLC and those advanced by The Jernigan Law Firm are attached to plaintiff’s motion. (DE ## 84-3, 84- 4.) 16. The litigation expenses were reasonable and necessary for the proper prosecution of this matter. 17. Attorneys submitted affidavits addressing, among other things, their efforts on behalf of plaintiff in this matter and the unique difficulties the case presented. 18. Carroll’s heirs, who are entitled under North Carolina law to share in the proceeds of the wrongful death recovery, are: Seth Carroll, age: 21; Rebekah Carroll, age: 20; Hannah Carroll, age: 18; and S.C., DOB: June **, 2003, age: 16. 19. Shortly before Carroll’s death, he and Wendy Carroll entered into a Separation Agreement and Property Settlement wherein Wendy Carroll waived her right to share in his estate. Consequently, Wendy Carroll is not an heir for purposes of distribution of the

wrongful death proceeds and is not seeking any recovery from those proceeds. 20. Each of the adult heirs as well as their mother, Wendy Carroll, both individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of the minor heir, have signed a statement indicating they are satisfied with the representation of their attorneys and “very pleased” with the results obtained. (DE # 84-8, at 3-4.) The individuals request that this court approve the disbursement of the settlement proceeds as requested in plaintiff’s motion. (Id. at 3.) 21. The “court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected.” Pellegrin v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins., 605 F.3d 238, 243 (4th Cir. 2010). Thus, the court provides “an opinion as to the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement” when minors are

involved. Local Civil Rule R. 17.1. 22. Integral to the court’s role in protecting minors is determining whether their attorney fee agreements are reasonable. Pellegrin, 605 F.3d at 243. Accordingly, the court must “approve or fix the amount of the fee to be paid to counsel for the minor or incompetent parties” and provide “a summary of services rendered by counsel for the minor or incompetent parties.” Local Civil Rule 17.1. 23. Contingency fee agreements are evaluated under a reasonableness standard. Pellegrin, 605 F.3d at 245. The court’s inquiry is guided by the following twelve factors: (1) the time and labor required in the case, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented, (3) the skill required to perform the necessary legal services, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the lawyer due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee for similar work, (6) the contingency of a fee, (7) the time pressures imposed in the case, (8) the award involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer, (10) the “undesirability” of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between the lawyer and the client, and (12) the fee awards made in similar cases.

In Re: Abrams & Abrams, 605 F.3d 238, 244 (2010) (quoting Allen v. U.S., 606 F.2d 432, 436 (4th Cir. 1979)). 24. Plaintiff’s motion and the affidavits of attorneys address pertinent Allen factors as set out in In Re:Abrams. (See DE ## 84-6, 84-7.) 25.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Carroll v. Oakley Trucking, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-oakley-trucking-inc-nced-2019.