Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02511/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02511-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEELE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. /

No. C-05-02511 TEH (EDL)

ORDER ALLOCATING 

ATTORNEY FEES

This case sought damages for three children, B.I.S., C.M.S. and R.A.D., whose mother died

in an accident involving a motorcycle driven by Curtis Steele, also a plaintiff and the father of two

of the children, and a truck driven by an employee of the Lake County Tribal Health Consortium. 

Tibor Major initially represented all three children in a wrongful death suit through their guardian ad

litem and maternal grandfather, John DeMartini, and associated in the law firm of Abbey,

Weizenberg, Warren, and Emery, P.C. Subsequently, B.I.S. obtained new guardians, relatives on

her father's side, and with that change a new attorney, David Nold, who also represented Curtis

Steele. The case settled and the court entered a “Stipulation and Order Approving Settlement

Disbursement to Plaintiffs,” which left open a disputed lien by Tibor Major, former attorney for

B.I.S., over the attorneys’ fees portion of the settlement proceeds of B.I.S.

The amount of attorney fees to be awarded is within the sound discretion of the Court, taking

into account the type and difficulty of the matter, counsel's skill, counsel's experience, the time spent

on the case, and the outcome. See Padilla v. McClellan, 93 Cal. App. 4th 1100, 1107 (2001). The

Court should consider the value of the services provided by the attorney, not merely the time spent

and tasks performed. Id. at 1108. Here, the facts weigh against the apportionment of fees in equal

shares per child, as Major advocates. Major pursued the case in state court, which proved to be the

Case 3:05-cv-02511-TEH Document 101 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

wrong forum. The correct forum was federal court, because the case fell under the Federal Tort

Claims Act and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. While Major

eventually came to this conclusion, Nold's research revealed the proper forum before Major's, and in

general, the state litigation did not help move this federal case forward or help its resolution. Thus,

equitable analysis and principles of quantum meruit do not justify the amount requested. Further,

Major would have had to do virtually all the same work to represent two children as three, and he

and his co-counsel Abbey, Weizenberg, Warren, and Emery, P.C. have already been compensated in

the amount of $254,792.91 for fees and costs for representing the other two children. Thus, his

request for one third of the lodestar he claims (hourly rate time hours) is too high to allocate to work

done for B.I.S. 

Accordingly, the Court allocates $2,500 to Major for B.I.S. attorney fees, and the remainder

to Nold. David Nold is ordered to pay Major $2,500 from his trust account.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02511-TEH Document 101 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 2