UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30625
Summary Calendar
In Re: In the Matter of the Complaint of MALMAC DN
BHD; et al., Owners and/or operators and/or
owners of the barge DB 29 for Exoneration
from or Limitation of Liability,
MICHAEL TESTA; LAW FIRM OF TESTA AND TESTA,
Intervenors-Appellees,
VERSUS
MICHAEL LEE; ET AL.,
Claimants,
JULIE HARDY, Individually and as the representative
of the estate of Stephen Hardy and on behalf of and
as next friend of Kirsty Leanne Hardy, Laura Stacey
Hardy, and Ben Derek Hardy, who also sue individually
and on behalf of any other proper legal beneficiaries
of Stephen Hardy,
Claimant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(91-CV-3016)
January 26, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stephen Hardy ("decedent") a commercial diver and resident of
England, died on August 15, 1991, when the derrick barge DB-29
capsized and sank in the South China Sea during a typhoon.
Decedent was survived by his spouse, Julie Hardy, and the three
children of their marriage; by his former spouse, Ann Hardy, and
the two children of their marriage; and by his parents. All of
decedent’s survivors were residents of England. Shortly
thereafter, McDermott, as owner and/or operator of the barge DB-29
filed this limitation of liability proceeding in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Later on in
August 1991, Julie Hardy and her three minor children (collectively
"Hardy") retained Michael Testa and his law firm Testa and Testa
(collectively "Testa") to represent their interests in the
limitation proceeding pursuant to a written contingent fee
agreement. Testa negotiated a settlement of all of Hardy’s claims
for $2.9 million from McDermott and such settlement was approved by
the federal district judge handling the limitation of liability
proceedings subject to final approval by the High Court of England
as to the interests of the first wife, Ann Hardy, and the parents
of Stephen Hardy. Because of difficulties in securing the approval
of the High Court of England, Hardy terminated her contingent fee
agreement with Testa and later retained the services of Keaty and
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Keaty as counsel to process her claims against McDermott. Keaty
and Keaty ultimately settled Hardy’s claims for $4.5 million and
waived any claim as to attorney’s fees which might be owed on the
first $2.9 million of that settlement. The sum of $966,667 was
placed on deposit in the registry of the court representing the
disputed attorney’s fees as to the first $2.9 million of the
settlement. Testa filed an intervention seeking recovery of the
attorney’s fees contemplated under the terms of the written
contingency agreement with Hardy. Hardy disputed her obligation to
pay such fees and Testa and Hardy consented in writing to the trial
and entry of final judgment on their dispute by the magistrate
judge. After conducting a four-day evidentiary hearing, the
magistrate judge entered an order and reasons and a final judgment
awarding $966,667 in the registry of the court to Testa as
attorney’s fees pursuant to the employment agreement. Hardy timely
filed an appeal from that final judgment.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the
record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For
the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in her order and reasons
filed under date of April 15, 1999, we affirm the final judgment
entered of even date therewith.
AFFIRMED.