FRIENDS FOR ALL CHILDREN v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
Decision Date | 16 June 1983 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 76-0544. |
Citation | 567 F. Supp. 790 |
Parties | FRIENDS FOR ALL CHILDREN, INC., as legal guardian and next friend of the named 150 infant individuals, et al., Plaintiff, v. LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Third-Party Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
J. Vernon Patrick, Jr., Berkowitz, Lefkovits & Patrick, Birmingham, Ala., Oren R. Lewis, Jr., Lewis, Wilson, Lewis & Jones, Ltd., Arlington, Va., for plaintiffs.
Carroll E. Dubuc, Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg & Casey, Washington, D.C., for defendant and third-party plaintiff.
Mark A. Dombroff, Director, Torts Branch, Civil Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for third-party defendant.
Charles R. Work, McDermott, Will & Emery, Washington, D.C., guardian ad litem.
On July 26, 1982, plaintiffs' counsel, in anticipation of final approval of the settlement agreement by the Deputy Attorney General and the Court, filed several motions seeking disbursement of the settlement proceeds in the following proportions:
1. 33 1/3 % directly to the guardians of the individual plaintiffs, free of trust;
2. 16 2/3 % to a central trust;
3. 33 1/3 % to attorney fees;
4. 3 1/3 % to the guardians ad litem for their fees and expenses; and
5. 13 1/3 % to litigation expenses.
This allocation of the settlement recovery was also recommended by the guardian ad litem in his Report and Recommendation filed August 25, 1982.
On February 16, 1983, the Court authorized payment of $100,000, free of trust, to each individual plaintiff who submitted to the Court a proposed order, signed by that plaintiff's locally appointed guardian and representing that the funds would be administered in accordance with local law. On May 3, 1983, the Court gave its approval to the creation of a central trust to provide additional funds to those plaintiffs who, over time, prove to be in need of greater medical assistance. The time has now come for the Court to turn its attention to final payments to plaintiffs' counsel and the guardians ad litem for their fees and expenses.2 Interim payments for these items from the global settlement have been made from time to time over the last few months,3 but the Court has withheld final payment for these items pending further submissions from the guardians ad litem on the subject of their fees and expenses and the Final Report of the Special Masters appointed to examine the litigation expenses.4 For the reasons explained below, the Court authorizes payments for fees and expenses in the amounts described on pp. 817 and in Table 12.
The original action in this litigation was filed by the firm of Lewis, Wilson, Jones and Lewis in 1975 on behalf of Friends for All Children ("FFAC") as personal representative of the 150 infants who survived the crash. The complaint sought both compensatory and punitive damages. At that time, the Lewis firm quoted to FFAC the firm's normal contingent fee of one-third of any recovery; if there were no recovery, the Lewis firm would earn no fee. The clients would be responsible for expenses.
In 1978, the Lewis firm associated the firm of Berkowitz, Lefkovits & Patrick of Birmingham, Alabama. Thereafter, in late 1978, the Court appointed Charles Work, Esq., as amicus curiae to advise about the propriety of certain communications from the Lewis firm to the parents of the children. Those communications recommended that individual parents substitute for FFAC as plaintiffs' legal representatives, while continuing to retain the Lewis firm as counsel. Thereafter, the Court appointed Mr. Work and his firm as guardian ad litem with the responsibility, among others, of establishing communications with the plaintiffs' adoptive parents, many of whom were residents of European countries. The guardian carefully drafted a letter designed to give each parent a fair description of the lawsuit brought by FFAC and the prospects and risks of participating. The letter offered further consultation with any parent who had questions not answered by the letter.
The guardian ad litem's letter to the parents included a statement that the Lewis firm had agreed to represent each plaintiff for a contingent fee not to exceed one-third of any recovery, with the understanding that each plaintiff would be responsible for any expenses incurred in the prosecution of the lawsuit. The letter explained the fee agreement in the following terms:
Report of the Guardian ad litem, October 12, 1979; Affidavit of Oren R. Lewis, Jr., October 25, 1982, p. 2.
In 1979, when these preliminary matters were resolved and the guardian ad litem was in place, defendants entered into an agreement with plaintiffs and the guardian ad litem pursuant to which plaintiffs dismissed their claim for punitive damages in exchange for a payment by defendants to the guardian ad litem of $5,000 for each child's medical care and legal expenses5 and an agreement by defendants not to contest the jurisdiction of the court, to conduct discovery in the District of Columbia, and to pay 30 percent of any jury verdict without appeal.6 Defendants admitted liability for the crash, and the sole issue for trial, according to the agreement, was what damages, if any, were due the individual plaintiffs.
These express commitments in the 1979 agreements settling liability gave hope, if not promise, that the cases could be disposed of expeditiously. The plaintiffs were all about the same age and had shared a common experience, both before and after the crash. There was medical testimony that an unusually large number had symptoms common to a single syndrome, Minimum Brain Dysfunction ("MBD"). The Court expected that it would be a relatively simple matter to adduce expert testimony as to the cause and extent of any injury suffered in two or three typical cases. Jury verdicts on those cases should have provided parties and counsel, litigating and negotiating in good faith, an adequate basis for quick settlement of the remaining cases. Settlements had been the result in the many cases involving adult, United States citizen victims of the crash. Contrary to this expectation, however, instead of brief, administrative-like hearings to resolve what was thought to be a relatively simple medical/legal issue, there erupted one of the most protracted, costly, and unpleasant litigations in the history of this district.
In the Spring of 1980, this Court tried three bellwether cases seriatim to the same jury. Contrary to the Court's expectations, each trial consumed three full weeks, as defendants vigorously contested the plaintiffs' claim that the damages they had incurred were proximately caused by the accident. The jury awarded $500,000 to one plainti...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. Wright
...both present and future, of the [minor] plaintiffs who are the Court's special responsibility.Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 567 F.Supp. 790, 812–13 (D.D.C.1983) (internal citations omitted). Indeed, Tennessee has legislation pertinent to this issue: In any actio......
-
Pray v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
...medical and educational treatment outweighed the chance for a large punitive damage award. See Friends For All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 567 F.Supp. 790, 796 (D.D.C.1983). FFAC and the other representatives of the estates of the decedents did not relinquish the claims for p......
-
Friends for All Children v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
...of the damages, if any, incurred by the plaintiffs as a proximate result of the Saigon crash. See Friends for all Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 567 F.Supp. 790, 796 (D.D.C.1983). 2. Through trials and settlements, each of the 52 American plaintiffs has recovered a substantial a......
-
Paregien v. Wilshire Ins. Co., Case No.: 1:15-cv-01621 AWI JLT
...the interests of child-litigants. Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); See Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 567 F.Supp. 790, 812-813 (D.D.C.1983. Thus, the Court is obligated to independently investigate the fairness of the settlement even wh......