DeGroat v. Ingles

Opinion

FEINBERG, J.

The plaintiffs brought suit against defendants alleging personal injury. At the conclusion of the pretrial settlement conference, the judge stated “. . . there is a disposition of the proceedings, as I understand it, as follows:

“Plaintiff is willing to dismiss and submit releases in consideration for the payment of $4,500.

“Defendant Marr is willing to pay $1,250, and defendant Sam, $500, and defendant Ingles, $2,750.

“This settlement is conditioned on the State of California’s compromise [of its Medi-Cal lien on the judgment]. . . . This matter is continued to next Thursday, December 18, 1980, at 9:00 AM in this Department to hear the minor’s compromise, and [plaintiff’s counsel] has been asked to obtain the State’s agreement to a fifty percent compromise before that date and if the State is not willing to compromise their claim in the amount of fifty percent, then it is the order of this Court that an officer of the appropriate state governmental agency with authority to make decisions of this nature be present at the hearing next Thursday, the 18th.” The parties agreed that the foregoing were the terms of the settlement.

Following the settlement conference, plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to compromise the Medi-Cal lien with a representative of the state. The state was willing to take $750 in satisfaction of the lien provided that plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to reduce his attorney- fees by $150. It appears that the $750 figure was about $100 above the 50 percent compromise sought. The $750 figure and the $150 reduction of fees proposed by the state were both unacceptable to plaintiffs.

On December 18, 1980, counsel for plaintiffs and the state met with the settlement judge. They informed the court that no settlement had been reached and the case was taken off calendar.

[401]

Plaintiffs’ counsel wrote counsel for defendant Ingles that the settlement had “fallen through.” Ingles’ counsel replied, “[y]ou have informed us that the $750 figure is completely unacceptable to your clients. . . . Therefore it appears as though the settlement which [the court] and the parties worked hard to achieve has fallen through.”