Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-07-2013

Case Style: Amy Mallette v. Norman Warner

Case Number: CJ-2011-8091

Judge: Bryan C. Dixon

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Marcus Mears

Defendant's Attorney: Keith P. Connell

Description: Amy Mallette, individually and as mother and next friend of Katherine Mallett, a minor, sued Norman Warner on an auto negligence theory claiming Katherine Mallette was injured in a car wreck which Plaintiff claimed as caused by Warner.

The claims made and defenses asserted are not available.

Outcome: ON THIS 7th day of December, 2012, this case comes on for hearing on the Joint Petition to approve compromised settlement of the Plaintiff and Defendant by consent of these parties. The Plaintiff, Amy Mallette, appears in person and by attorney of record, Marcus Mears; Defendant appears by and through attorney, Keith P. Connell. The parties, through counsel, announce that they have agreed to a compromised settlement of the claims of the Plaintiff alleged against the Defendant and move the Court to approve such settlement. Having considered the statements of counsel and the testimony of witnesses sworn in open court, as well as documentary evidence introduced in support of the Joint Application, the Court makes the following findings and orders:

1. The Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Venue of this action is proper in this Court.

2. KATHERINE MALLETTE was born on May 8, 2000. The Plaintiff is the parent and next friend and/or guardian of the minor and is the proper party to bring this action.

3. On June 16, 2010, in OKLAHOMA County, Oklahoma, the minor was injured in an accident. As a result of said accident, the minor sustained injuries.

4. Plaintiff alleges that the minor is entitled to recover damages from the Defendant by reason of the injuries suffered on June 16, 2010, and further alleges that such damages were caused by the negligence of the Defendant. Defendant has denied liability.

5. The parties have agreed to a compromised settlement as follows:

(a) A payment of $11,500.00 to be made by Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. on behalf of Defendant, to be disbursed in the Order for Deposit filed contemporaneously herewith.

(b) The foregoing payment will be made in exchange for a full and complete release of the Defendant and Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co.

(c) Plaintiff shall within twenty (20) days of approval by this Court of the settlement agreement, satisfy all outstanding liens for services rendered by health care providers to the minor, for treatment of any and all injuries suffered by the minor on June 16, 2010, and shall secure from such health care providers promptly executed lien releases, file such releases with the appropriate governmental agencies, and furnish copies of such executed and filed releases to the attorney for the Defendant.

6. By entering into this settlement agreement, it is the intention of the Defendant to compromise doubtful or disputed claims of the Plaintiff. By entering into such agreement, the Defendant does not admit any liability to the Plaintiff upon her claims.

7. The foregoing settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and in the best interest of the minor.

8. The Court finds it is in the best interest of the minor to authorize the parent and next friend to execute a release for all claims of the minor against the Defendant, arising out of or to arise out of the injuries suffered by the minor on June 16, 2010.

9. The monies to be received by the Plaintiff, as parent and next friend and/or guardian of the minor shall be deposited into an account of Plaintiffs choosing in accord with 12 O.S. Sec. 83.

10. The Plaintiff is authorized to execute a Release and Settlement Agreement on behalf of the minor, releasing all claims of the minor against the Defendant which arose or may arise by reason of any injuries sustained on June 16, 2010.

11. By approving the compromised settlement agreement reached by the parties, the Court does not make any finding of liability in favor of or against the Plaintiff or settling Defendant, and the entry of this Order shall not be construed as an admission of liability by Defendant.

12. Upon entry of this Order, this Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of considering any motion or application to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case