Martinez v. County of Tehama ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 J.M., a minor, by and through No. 2:19-cv-02297 WBS DMC his guardian ad litem 13 Christopher Martinez, individually and as successor- 14 in-interest to Alberto Wayne ORDER APPROVING MINOR’S Martinez, deceased; TAMMY COMPROMISE 15 MARTINEZ, individually; MANUEL MARTINEZ, individually, 16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 COUNTY OF TEHAMA, a governmental 19 entity; and DOES ONE through TEN, individually, 20 Defendant. 21 22 ----oo0oo---- 23 Plaintiffs J.M., a minor, by and through his guardian 24 ad litem Christopher Martinez, and Tammy and Manuel Martinez, 25 individually, brought this action against the County of Tehama 26 and two sheriff’s deputies alleging, inter alia, that defendants 27 used excessive force in arresting decedent Alberto Wayne Martinez 28 1 and violated the survivors’ Fourteenth Amendment right to familial 2 association with him. (Docket No. 1.) The parties’ stipulated to 3 dismissal of the action with prejudice as to all parties and all 4 claims on April 30, 2020. (Docket No. 24.) The court ordered 5 the plaintiffs to file a properly noticed motion for minor’s 6 compromise pursuant to Local Rule 202(b) and 230 before the 7 action was dismissed. (Docket No. 25.) This motion followed. 8 (Mot. (Docket No. 28).) 9 Under the Eastern District of California’s Local Rules, 10 the court must approve the settlement of the claims of a minor. 11 E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b). The party moving for approval of the 12 settlement must provide the court “information as may be required to 13 enable the [c]ourt to determine the fairness of the settlement or 14 compromise[.]” Id. at L.R. 202(b)(2); see also Robidoux v. 15 Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that 16 district courts have a duty “to safeguard the interests of minor 17 plaintiffs” that requires them to “determine whether the net amount 18 distributed to each minor plaintiff in the proposed settlement is 19 fair and reasonable[.]”). District courts must “limit the scope of 20 their review to the question whether the net amount distributed to 21 each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in 22 light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and 23 recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1181-82. 24 Under the proposed settlement, each party will waive its 25 claim to attorneys’ costs and fees. (Mot. at 2.) None of the 26 plaintiffs, including minor J.M., will receive compensation. (Id.) 27 In the absence of recovery by any of the other parties, it is 28 reasonable for J.M. to receive no compensation. Indeed, as the WOO 42.497 UV OVD LIVIN MYVVUULLICIIL UO VViewey rayet vviiv 1 parties recognize and as the court now notes, there is a substantial 2 likelihood that the jury would reject J.M.’s claims, leading to the 3 taxation of statutory costs against him. (Id.) It is therefore 4 within J.M.’s best interest to dismiss the case. 5 The court, after considering all of the relevant papers, 6 finds the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest 7 of minor J.M., despite the fact that he will receive no 8 compensation. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b); see also Bonilla-Chirinos 9 v. City of West Sacramento, 2:15-cv-02465-WBS-EFB, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 10 Jan. 15, 2020) (approving minor’s compromise “notwithstanding the 11 fact that [the minor] will receive no compensation.”). Accordingly, 12 the court will approve the settlement of plaintiffs’ claims against 13 defendant and will grant plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Minor’s 14 Compromise. 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Approve 16 Minor’s Compromise (Docket No. 28) be, and the same hereby is, 17 GRANTED. 18 | pated: June 25, 2020 tleom ah. A. be—~ 19 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28