BUSHEY
v.
UNITED STATES FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court denied the motion to approve the settlement without prejudice because it lacked sufficient information regarding costs and expenses and contained a potential drafting error. The Court also ordered the settlement agreement stricken due to unredacted minor names.
Plaintiff, acting as guardian for his minor children, sought court approval for a settlement of their personal injury claims against the United States…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Personal Injury Claim Under Federal Tort Claims Act cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion for Order Authorizing Settlement of Minors’ Personal Injury Claim (Doc. 34; Motion), filed on April 27, 2022. In the Motion, Sean Bushey, individually and as the parent and natural guardian of J.B. and J.B., his minor children, seeks this Court’s approval of the settlement of the claims brought in the above-styled cause. See Motion at 1. Plaintiff attaches the settlement to the Motion for the Court’s review. See Stipulation for Compromise Settlement and Release of Federal Tort Claims Act Claims Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2677 (Doc. 34-1; Settlement). Plaintiff represents to the Court that Defendant United States of America consents to the settlement and relief requested in the Motion. See Motion at 7. Upon review, the Court finds it necessary to deny the Motion without prejudice to the filing of a renewed motion which addresses the issues identified below. Under Florida law,1 “[w]hen a settlement of any claim by or against the guardian, whether arising as a result of personal injury or otherwise . . . is proposed . . . the court may enter an order authorizing the settlement if satisfied that the settlement will be for the best interest of the ward.” See Fla. Stat. § 744.387(1), (2). The Court needs more information in order to make this assessment. Although the parties provided the Court with information on the amount of the settlement, the amount of the outstanding medical liens, and the percentage of the settlement to be paid as attorney’s fees, the Court lacks information as to the amount of Plaintiff’s “costs and expenses” to be paid out of the Settlement. See Settlement ¶ 3.d. As such, the Court will require
In addition, the Court directs counsel for both parties to review paragraph 5, subparagraph c. of the Settlement and address what appears to be a drafting error. This subsection states as follows: Plaintiffs must obtain, at their expense, approval of the settlement by a court of competent jurisdiction on behalf of [J.B.] and [J.B.] The Order approving the settlement on behalf of [J.B.] and [J.B.] may be obtained from either the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida or a state court of competent jurisdiction. The Order approving the settlement on behalf of [J.B.] and [J.B.] must be obtained from a state court of competent jurisdiction.
See Settlement ¶ 5.c. (emphasis added). The underlined sentence appears to have been included in error given its inconsistency with the preceding sentence. If the underlined provision was not included in error, then the parties must advise the Court whether they have obtained the state court’s approval as required. The next sentence in paragraph 5.c. provides that “[t]he terms of any court Order, a draft of which shall be provided by the United States, are a condition of this settlement.” See Settlement ¶ 5.c. (emphasis added). However, the parties have not filed or otherwise provided the Court with a copy of the contemplated draft order. Thus, any renewed motion should attach the proposed order and counsel should email a Word version of the order to the undersigned’s chambers at [email protected]. Last, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed the Settlement on the Court docket without redacting the full names of the minor children in violation of Rule 5.2(a)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Part G., paragraphs 1. and 2. of the Court’s CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Indeed, the names of the minor children are set forth in full in multiple places throughout the document.
See Settlement ¶¶ 3, 4, 5.c. Accordingly, the Court will strike the Settlement and direct the Clerk of the Court to remove it from the Court docket. In filing the renewed motion, Plaintiff must attach a properly redacted copy of the Agreement. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED: 1. The Unopposed Motion for Order Authorizing Settlement of Minors’ Personal Injury Claim (Doc. 34) is DENIED without prejudice to filing a renewed motion that addresses the issues identified in this Order. 2. The unredacted Settlement Agreement (Doc. 34-1) STRICKEN and the Clerk of the Court is directed to remove the Settlement from the Court docket. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 16th day of May, 2022.
United States District Judge
Ie11 Copies to: Counsel of Record