Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08067/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08067-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maria Goodloe,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Hector Gomez, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-14-08067-PCT-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

This diversity-based removed personal injury action stems from a motor

vehicle accident in Arizona between a van driven by plaintiff Maria Goodloe, a

Nevada citizen, and a tractor-trailer driven by defendant Hector Gomez and owned

by defendant Vasquez Trucking, Inc., both California citizens. The parties filed a

Notice of Settlement (Doc. 35) on December 22, 2014. On February 11, 2015, the

plaintiff’s counsel of record in this action, Bernstein & Poisson, LLC, a Las Vegas,

Nevada law firm, filed a Motion to Enforce Fee Agreement and Finalize Settlement

(Doc. 37). That motion stated in relevant part that the plaintiff had signed a general

settlement release discharging the defendants from liability in consideration of a

payment of $500,000 from the defendants, that the defendants had sent the

settlement check to the plaintiff’s counsel, but that the settlement monies had not yet

Case 3:14-cv-08067-PGR Document 43 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

- 2 -

been disbursed by the plaintiff’s counsel because the plaintiff was contesting with

her counsel how much of the settlement fund should be paid to her and how much

should be paid to her counsel as attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 23, 2015,

the parties filed a Joint Report Regarding Status of Settlement (Doc. 39), wherein

they stated that the settlement sum had been paid by the defendants and the plaintiff

had executed a settlement release but that a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice

had not yet been filed solely due to the settlement distribution dispute between the

plaintiff and her counsel. On March 4, 2015, the plaintiff, through an Arizona

attorney, filed her opposition to her counsel’s motion wherein she argued that the

portion of her counsel’s motion seeking to finalize the settlement agreement with the

defendants was moot because she had signed and finalized the settlement

agreement; she further argued that the Court had no diversity jurisdiction to resolve

that portion of the her counsel’s motion seeking to enforce its contingency fee

agreement with her, or if did, that it should deny the motion either because she and

her counsel had already agreed that a Nevada state court in Las Vegas would

resolve their fee dispute or because her counsel’s contingency fee agreement was

unconscionable. On March 6, 2015, the plaintiff’s counsel filed an emergency

motion seeking a two-week extension in which to file a reply in support of its motion

because it needed time to acquire documents and witness declarations and prepare

case logs to counter the plaintiff’s argument regarding the extent of its representation

of her. 

Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that it is undisputed that the

plaintiff and the defendants reached an enforceable settlement agreement whereby

this action would be dismissed with prejudice upon the payment of $500,000 by the

defendants, which payment has been made by the defendants. While there is a

Case 3:14-cv-08067-PGR Document 43 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

The Court notes that the plaintiff’s counsel’s reliance on Rule 8011 of

the Ninth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel as the basis for its “emergency”

motion for an extension of time was improper since the BAP’s rules have no

applicability to this action.

- 3 -

pending fee dispute between the plaintiff and her counsel regarding the distribution

of the settlement monies, that does not change the fact that this action has been

completely settled as between the plaintiff and the defendants. For that reason, the

Court concludes that this action should be terminated with prejudice. The remaining

fee dispute between the plaintiff and her counsel is not one that is properly resolved

by this Court, and the Court makes no ruling as to the merits of that dispute.

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Bernstein & Poisson’s Request for Extension of Time to

File Reply to Maria Goodloe’s Response to Bernstein & Poisson’s Motion to Enforce

Fee Agreement and Finalize Settlement (Doc. 42) is denied as moot.1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bernstein & Poisson’s Motion to Enforce Fee

Agreement (part of Doc. 37) is denied without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bernstein & Poisson’s Motion to Finalize

Settlement (part of Doc. 37) is granted to the extent that this action is dismissed in

its entirety with prejudice by reason of the parties’ settlement.

DATED this 10th day of March, 2015.

 

Case 3:14-cv-08067-PGR Document 43 Filed 03/10/15 Page 3 of 3