Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03128/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03128-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

C-05-3128 BRIEFING ORDER Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACOB DAVID NEITZEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MARIN, ET AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 05-3128 JL

BRIEFING ORDER ON 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Introduction

This Court has original jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Amendments Eight and

Fourteen to the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 28

U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343. The Court has pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under

California law. All parties consented to this Court’s jurisdiction as provided by 28 U.S.C.

§636(c) and Civil Local Rule 73.

Factual and Procedural Background

Briefly, Plaintiff Jacob David Neitzel has a history of mental illness, was incarcerated

in the Marin County Jail, attempted suicide by jumping from a tier and was seriously braininjured. He filed this lawsuit against the County of Marin and individual Defendants by his

conservator, his mother, Mary Catherine Powers-Neitzel. The parties settled the case and

the settlement was approved by Ms. Powers-Neitzel, the Marin County Board of

Supervisors and the Claims Review Committee of the California State Association of

Case 3:05-cv-03128-JL Document 53 Filed 11/16/06 Page 1 of 4
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

C-05-3128 BRIEFING ORDER Page 2 of 4

Counties - Excess Insurance Authority. The parties appeared before the Court for a hearing

to approve the terms of the settlement.

Terms of the Settlement Agreement

The basic terms of the settlement are that defendant County of Marin is to pay the

total sum of $300,000, that the parties are to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees, that

Plaintiff is to release Defendants from all known and unknown claims relating to the

allegations in the complaint; and that a dismissal with prejudice of the action is to be filed.

(Plaintiff’s Petition to Approve Settlement at 2, Id. at Ex. A; Factual contentions below are

from Plaintiff’s Petition).

Plaintiff’s mother was appointed as his conservator in the case entitled

Conservatorship of Jacob David Neitzel, Marin County Superior Court Case No. PR

050198. (Id. at Exs. B and C). Plaintiff will live with his mother, as he has since his release

from the hospital. Ms. Powers-Neitzel will deposit the proceeds of the settlement into a

Special Needs Trust for her son, which will supplement his Medi-Cal coverage and pay for

items he needs which are not covered by Medi-Cal.

One complication to the settlement is a lien in the approximate amount of

$233,837.81 in favor of the California Department of Health Services/Medi-Cal. Plaintiff’s

counsel is negotiating with Medi-Cal to reduce the amount of the lien to $90,000 or less.

If no further reduction of the Medi-Cal lien is obtained, then Jacob Neitzel, through

the Special Needs Trust, will net approximately $93,043 from the settlement ($300,000

gross settlement, less $116,957 attorneys’ fees and costs, less $90,000 Medi-Cal lien). If

the lien is further reduced, Neitzel will net more. The Conservatorship is exploring the

option of the Special Needs Trust purchasing an annuity for the benefit of Jacob Neitzel.

The Court finds most of the terms of the settlement to be in order but has some

reservations about the amount of attorneys’ fees.

Analysis

The Probate Code in many respects treats conservatees the same as minors. In

contingent fee cases, a court will normally award reasonable fees up to 25% of the total

Case 3:05-cv-03128-JL Document 53 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 4
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

C-05-3128 BRIEFING ORDER Page 3 of 4

recovery after deduction of costs and liens. The fee contract between the attorney and the

guardian must be approved by either the court in which the guardianship was set up or the

court having jurisdiction over the litigation.

Probate Code § 3601(a) provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees to be awarded to a

conservator in a case involving money or property paid under compromise or judgment for

a minor or disabled person. The Court has not seen the fee agreement in this case but

presumes that it is for a contingent fee. The Probate Code provides for reasonable

attorneys’ fees in contingent fee cases and presumes that 25% of the recovery is

reasonable. In the case at bar, the attorneys’ fees and costs are more than 33% of the total

recovery and more than 50% of the recovery after deduction of the Medi-Cal lien. Plaintiff’s

counsel has not submitted an itemization of the fees and costs incurred. The Court requires

such an itemization in order to determine whether the attorneys’ fees are reasonable.

The Court examined the issue in several treatises:

(1) [12:577] Contingency fee cases: The court may allow attorney fees

under a valid contingency fee agreement so long as the fees are reasonable. [CRC (Probate Rules) 7.955]

Many courts require a showing of ‘good cause‘ to award more than 25% of

any recovery. [See L.A. Sup.Ct. Rule 10.187(e); Orange Sup.Ct. Rule 368;

San Diego Sup.Ct. Rule 2.37B]

Comment: As a practical matter, awards for more than 25% of the recovery in

minor's cases are rare and are justified only when counsel proves that he or

she provided extraordinary services.

CACIVP CH. 12(II)-B 

§ 2646]

a. [5:374] Contingency fees: A contingency fee contract on behalf of a ward

or conservatee is valid provided the contract is made pursuant to a court

order authorizing the guardian or conservator to enter into the contract or the

contract has received judicial approval. [Prob.C. § 2644(a)]

CAPROFR CH. 5-C 

(a) Where it is to the advantage, benefit, and best interest of the ward or

conservatee or the estate, the guardian or conservator of the estate may

contract with an attorney for a contingent fee for the attorney's services in

representing the ward or conservatee or the estate in connection with a

matter that is of a type that is customarily the subject of a contingent fee

contract, but such a contract is valid only if (1) the contract is made pursuant

to an order of the court authorizing the guardian or conservator to execute the

contract or (2) the contract is approved by order of the court.

Case 3:05-cv-03128-JL Document 53 Filed 11/16/06 Page 3 of 4
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

C-05-3128 BRIEFING ORDER Page 4 of 4

(b) To obtain an order under this section, the guardian or conservator shall file

a petition with the court showing the advantage, benefit, and best interest to

the ward or conservatee or the estate of the contingent fee contract. A copy

of the contingent fee contract shall be attached to the petition.

(c) Notice of the hearing on the petition shall be given for the period and in the

manner provided in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1460) of Part 1.

(d) As used in this section, "court" includes either of the following:

(1) The court in which the guardianship or conservatorship proceeding

is pending.

(2) Where the contract is in connection with a matter in litigation, the

court in which the litigation is pending.

West's Ann.Cal.Prob.Code § 2644 

Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to brief the issue of the reasonableness of

the attorneys’ fees’ component of the settlement of this case, with particular attention to the

authorities cited above. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel shall submit billing records to this

Court for review to determine the reasonableness of counsel’s fees and costs incurred. The

Court will then make a finding whether there is good cause to award the requested fees.

Plaintiff’s counsel shall also provide the Court with a copy of the fee contract with Plaintiff’s

conservator and documentation that this contract was approved by the state court. The

brief and supporting documents shall be filed no later than December 20, 2006

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 16, 2006 

__________________________________

 James Larson

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03128-JL Document 53 Filed 11/16/06 Page 4 of 4