MENDEL WHITE v. SLUKA & MINASIAN, LLC, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3845-04T33845-04T3

MENDEL WHITE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

SLUKA & MINASIAN, LLC, and

HEA SHIN CHANG,

Respondents-Respondents.

 

Submitted January 19, 2006 - Decided February 2, 2006

Before Judges Conley and Winkelstein.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, L-7706-03.

Mendel White, appellant pro se.

Sluka & Minasian, respondent pro se (Lawrence D. Minasian, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Mendel White is an attorney. He represented respondent Hea Shin Chang in an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident on October 27, 2001. Chang executed a retainer agreement with petitioner, who filed a lawsuit on her behalf in Superior Court, in Bergen County.

In September 2003, Chang contacted respondent attorneys, Sluka & Minasian, LLC, requesting that they represent her in the personal injury action. After a dispute arose concerning petitioner's fees for the work he had already done for Chang, petitioner filed a petition asking the court to fix his counsel fees. Petitioner appeals from Judge Stark's February 28, 2005 order that Chang pay petitioner $2500 "as full and final payment for his attorney's fee."

To resolve the fee dispute, Judge Stark held a hearing on February 14, 2005. She heard argument from both Mr. White and Mr. Minasian, and took testimony from Kathleen Berenbroick, who testified about the contents of the insurance company's file with regard to Ms. Chang's claim. The court did not take testimony from either Mr. White or Mr. Minasian. In arriving at her decision, Judge Stark made the following findings that she placed on the record on February 16, 2005:

This is a claim by the referring attorney, Mendel White, for payment of a major share of the contingent fee paid to the defendant attorney, Mr. Minasian, to whom the underlying accident case had been referred. The underlying case was a motor vehicle accident on October 27 of 2001. The damage claims in that case were controlled by the AICRA threshold.

Plaintiff, Mr. White, received the case through a Korean paralegal he knew. Mr. White interviewed the client through a Korean interpreter and received an initial three-page report from Dr. Cantha (phonetic), filed a complaint, and went to a PIP claim hearing that had been filed by the client's treating surgeon to observe that hearing, and entered default against the defendant driver, contacted Allstate, who finally entered an appearance in the matter for the defendant driver, and answered Form A Interrogatories for his client. Mr. White's client had about 125,000, or thereabouts, in PIP bills from this accident, which had been paid. He informed the client that the negligence case should be worth more than the $100,000, but that both she and the driver involved in the accident only had $100,000 policies. Mr. White felt that he could settle the matter for $100,000 once Allstate was in the case.

Mr. White's client never responded to his final letter requesting her decision as to whether she wanted to settle[d] for $100,000, or pursue a higher amount from the defendant driver who was at fault in the underlying accident case.

The next contact that Mr. White had was from defendant Mr. Minasian, saying that Mr. Minasian had been hired by the client to pursue this matter. . . . [B]y the time Mr. Minasian received the file, the case was two days away from the end date of discovery. There . . . had been a dispute about the transfer of the file. . . . [T]he transfer of the file was completed after a Court order, and . . . upon defendant Minasian's payment to Mr. White of all of the costs that Mr. White had incurred on the file.

Defendant, Mr. Minasian, had to obtain . . . a physician's certification once he got the file, which had never been filed in this case. He had to prepare for and attend arbitration. He had to prepare for trial after he had gotten an extension of time for discovery to obtain all of the client's medicals and allow defendant to obtain medicals so that . . . Allstate, would address the value of the case, which they refused to do prior to Mr. Minasian getting into the case.

The Allstate attorney testified in this hearing to describe the file as it existed when their firm received it, and work that was necessary before Allstate would even begin to evaluate the case. None of the information necessary to begin that process existed in the file when Mr. Minasian contacted Allstate initially.

After photos of the property damage, many doctor records, supplemental doctor reports describing epidural injections, plus two surgeries, plus permanency and proximate relationship of those injuries to the motor vehicle accident, and the client going to defendant doctor, the underlying matter settled on the eve of trial for the policy limit, $100,000.

I am satisfied that the only work that plaintiff, Mr. White, did was what has already been described on this record. The work done was essential to the case, but it was minimal and perfunctory compared to the exhaustive work Mr. Minasian had to do to get Allstate to consider settling for the entire policy. . . .

While Mr. White did some work that has previously been described here, one cannot say that it amounted to, at the very most, ten hours. Mr. White has been a member of the bar since 1966. He is certainly entitled to an hourly rate of $250 an hour for a person of his experience and talent. . . . The only value he supplied to the case was insuring a timely complaint was filed, that the parties were served, that the initial doctor report and Form A Interrogatories were also served.

I am satisfied that the factors enunciated in [Bruno v. Gale, 371 N.J. Super. 69, 74-76 (App. Div. 2004)] require a fee to Mr. White of $2,500. Mr. Minasian is entitled to all of the balance of the fee.

We affirm substantially for the reasons given by Judge Stark in her comprehensive opinion. While petitioner claims he was not provided an opportunity to testify or cross-examine his adversary at the February 14, 2005 hearing, the record is clear that he never asked for permission to testify, nor did he ask to have his adversary testify. In fact, near the end of the proceeding, after the court had heard arguments of counsel and testimony of Ms. Berenbroick, the judge asked: "Is there anything else that either of you has to present to me?" While petitioner made reference to a June 23, 2003 letter and its evidential value, he did not, even at that time, request that he be permitted to testify or that he be permitted to cross-examine his adversary.

 
We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Stark. Petitioner's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A)&(E).

Affirmed.

The 1998 Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-3845-04T3

February 2, 2006