A. K. v. County of Sacramento ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 ALESHNA KUMARI, A.K., A.S., and No. 2:18-cv-61 WBS AC A.K.M., inclusive, 13 Plaintiffs, 14 ORDER APPROVING MINOR’S v. COMPROMISE 15 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; JESSE 16 GOMEZ-COATES, an individual, JANELLE GONZALEZ, an individual, 17 LEONA WILLIAMS, an individual, and DOES 1-40 inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Plaintiffs, three minor children and their mother 22 Aleshna Kumari, filed this lawsuit against the County of 23 Sacramento, as well as against Jesse Gomez-Coates, Janelle 24 Gonzalez, and Leona Williams, who are employed by Sacramento 25 County Child Protective Services. Plaintiffs allege violations 26 of their constitutional rights as well as the California 27 Government Code sections pertaining to breach of mandatory duty. 28 1 Hardip Singh was appointed as guardian ad litem for A.S., A.K., 2 and A.K.M.. (Docket No. 15.) Presently before the court is 3 Hardip Singh’s Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise. 4 (Docket No. 33.) The court held a hearing on this petition on 5 September 9, 2019. 6 Under the Eastern District of California’s Local Rules, 7 the court must approve the settlement of the claims of a minor. 8 E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b). The party moving for approval of the 9 settlement must provide the court “information as may be required 10 to enable the [c]ourt to determine the fairness of the settlement 11 or compromise[.]” Id. at L.R. 202(b)(2); see also Robidoux v. 12 Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that 13 district courts have a duty “to safeguard the interests of minor 14 plaintiffs” that requires them to “determine whether the net 15 amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the proposed 16 settlement is fair and reasonable[.]”). 17 In Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit specifically instructed 18 district courts to “limit the scope of their review to the 19 question whether the net amount distributed to each minor 20 plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of 21 the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery 22 in similar cases.” 638 F.3d at 1181-82. Although the Robidoux 23 court expressly limited its holding to a minor’s federal claims, 24 638 F.3d at 1179 n.2, district courts have also applied this rule 25 in the context of a minor’s state law claims. See, e.g., Frary 26 v. County of Marin, Case No. 12–cv-3928–MEJ, 2015 WL 575818, at 27 *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2015). 28 Under the proposed settlement, reached through private 1 mediation, the plaintiffs will receive $15,000. That amount will 2 be allocated between the parties as follows: 3 A.K. $2,500 4 A.K.M. $5,000 5 A.S. $2,500 6 Aleshna Kumari $5,000 7 (Choudhary Decl. ¶ 4 (Docket No. 33-2).) From this sum, 8 $1,405.83 will be deducted for attorneys’ costs. (Pet. For 9 Approval of Minor’s Compromise ¶ 14.) This amount will be 10 allocated equally across all four plaintiffs. (Id.) 11 $2,500 in attorneys’ fees will also be deducted from 12 the settlement and allocated as follows: 13 A.K. $625 in attorneys’ fees 14 A.K.M. $1,250 in attorneys’ fees 15 A.S. $625 in attorneys’ fees 16 (Id. ¶ 15.) $2,500 represents 25% of the $10,000 allocated to 17 the minors. It “has been the practice in the Eastern District of 18 California to consider 25% of the recovery as the benchmark for 19 attorney’s fees in contingency cases involving minors.” See 20 Chance v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., No. 1:15-cv-1889-DAD-JLT, 21 2016 WL 3538345, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2016) (compiling 22 cases). Thus, the court finds that attorneys’ fees totaling 25% 23 of the portion of the settlement allocated for the minor 24 plaintiffs is reasonable under the circumstances. 25 Following the deduction of attorneys’ costs and fees, 26 the net recovery for each minor child will be as follows: 27 A.K. $1,524 28 A.K.M. $3,399 1 A.S. $1,524 2 (Choudhary Decl. ¶ 7.) These funds will be placed in “blocked 3 accounts” and will be made available to the minors once they 4 attain 18 years of age. (Pet. for Approval of Minor’s Compromise 5 ¶ 17.) 6 The court, having considered all of the papers on file, 7 finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable and in the best 8 interests of the minor children. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b); see 9 also Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1179. Accordingly, the court will 10 approve the settlement of plaintiffs’ claims against defendants 11 and will grant Hardip Singh’s Motion for Approval of Minor’s 12 Compromise. 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Approve the 14 Minor’s Compromise (Docket No. 33) be, and the same hereby is, 15 GRANTED. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 17 (1) Settlement funds shall be disbursed as set forth in the 18 Declaration of Nilesh Choudhary in Support of Petition 19 for Order Authorizing Compromise of Minor’s Claim 20 (Docket No. 33-2); 21 (2) Minor plaintiffs’ Guardian Ad Litem, Hardip Singh, is 22 hereby authorized to and shall execute all documents 23 reasonably necessary to carry out the settlement; 24 (3) Upon receipt of the settlement funds, the minor 25 plaintiffs’ Guardian Ad Litem shall deposit each minor 26 plaintiff’s settlement funds into a restricted saving 27 account for him or her; 28 (4) No funds shall be withdrawn from any of the minor 1 plaintiffs’ restricted accounts except upon court order 2 until each respective minor plaintiff’s eighteenth 3 birthday, at which time that plaintiff may withdraw 4 said funds upon receipt of proof of his or her age by 5 the bank. 6 . Dated: September 10, 2019 dd Ld, ak A / / WILLIAM B. SHUBB 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28