I.F. v. City of Vallejo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 I.F, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. 20-mc-80075-LB E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:18-cv-00673-JAM 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER APPROVING MINOR'S 13 v. SETTLEMENT 14 CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., Re: ECF No. 8 15 Defendants. 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 This is a civil-rights and wrongful-death case arising from the death of plaintiff I.F.’s father, 19 Ronell Foster, who was shot and killed by a Vallejo police officer in February 2018.1 Plaintiff I.F., 20 by and through her mother, settled I.F.’s claims following a day-long settlement conference with 21 the undersigned.2 After the settlement, the parties consented to the undersigned’s exercise of 22 jurisdiction for all purposes concerning the settlement.3 Counsel for I.F. filed an unopposed 23 24 1 I.F. v. City of Vallejo, 2:18-cv-00673-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), First Am. Compl. – ECF No. 8. 25 Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF- generated page numbers at the top of documents. 26 2 Mot. to Approve Minor’s Compromise – ECF No. 8 at 2. The motion to approve minor’s 27 compromise is for plaintiff I.F. only. Id. 3 McMahon Consent – ECF No. 12; I.F. v. City of Vallejo, 2:18-cv-00673-JAM (E.D. Cal.), 1 motion to approve a minor’s compromise.4 The court can decide the motion without oral 2 argument, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and grants the motion. 3 4 ANALYSIS 5 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 6 safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 7 (9th Cir. 2011). “Rule 17(c) provides, in relevant part, that a district court must appoint a guardian 8 ad litem — or issue another appropriate order — to protect a minor or incompetent person who is 9 unrepresented in an action.” Id. (cleaned up). “In the context of proposed settlements in suits 10 involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to 11 determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.’” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. 12 Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). 13 In cases involving the settlement of federal claims, district courts should “limit the scope of 14 their review to the question whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the 15 settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and 16 recovery in similar cases,” and should “evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery 17 without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or 18 plaintiffs’ counsel — whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 19 1181–82 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078). 20 The settlement terms are as follows. The settlement amount is $5,700,000, allocated as 21 follows: (1) $427,500 for plaintiff Paula McGowan; (2) $427,500 for plaintiff Ronell Foster Sr.; 22 (3)$2,422,500 for plaintiff I.F.; and (4) $2,422,500 for plaintiff R.F.5 IF’s potion of the settlement 23 includes a structured settlement annuity with a present value of $1,779,647.56.6 The payments are 24 made on account of personal injury or sickness under § 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code 25 26 4 Mot. to Approve Minor’s Compromise – ECF No. 8 at 2. 27 5 Id. at 5. 1 and accordingly are tax exempt.7 The annuity provides a combination of annual and periodic 2 payments to I.F., as follows: 3 $25,000 on her 18th birthday, which I.F. could use to buy a car; 4 $1,712.13 per month for life beginning at age 18, increasing by two percent annually and guaranteed for 40 years to her beneficiary (until May 12, 2070) in the 5 event of her premature death; 6 $40,000 twice a year for four years beginning the summer after she turns 18, which she could use to pay for college; 7 $50,000 twice a year for two years beginning the summer she graduates from 8 college, which she could use to pay for graduate school; 9 $10,000 once a year for seven years beginning when she turns 18, which she could use for travel or investment; 10 $1,500 per year for life beginning at age 19, increasing by two percent annually, 11 and guaranteed for 40 years to her beneficiary (until June 12, 2070) in the event of her premature death; 12 $50,000 on her 22nd birthday; 13 $100,000 on her 25th birthday; 14 $150,000 on her 28th birthday; and 15 $325,000 on her 30th birthday.8 16 The total tax-free guaranteed benefits are $2,571,595.54, and the total tax-free expected 17 benefits for life are $3,895,421.04.9 18 The co-plaintiffs will split the cost of the fees for experts Omalu and Ryan, reducing the fees 19 to $37,227.44, and I.F.’s attorneys reduced their civil-rights attorney’s fees to $605,625, which is 20 25 percent of the settlement.10 I.F.’s counsel also waives reimbursement of the trial consultant’s 21 fees and asks the court to direct counsel to reimburse $43.68 to I.F.’s mother, who was 22 accidentally charged for this amount for lunch (which counsel did not intend for her to pay).11 23 24 7 Proposed Order – ECF No. 11 at 2. 25 8 Sherwin Decl. – ECF No. 9 at 4–5 (¶ 13); Structured Settlement Option, Ex. A to Sherwin Decl. – ECF No. 9 at 11–12. 26 9 Structured Settlement Option, Ex. A to Sherwin Decl. – ECF No. 9 at 12. 27 10 Mot. to Approve Minor’s Compromise – ECF No. 8 at 6–7; Sherwin Decl. – ECF No. 9 at 5 (¶¶ 17– 18). wAIe 2. LOU VEE POU EAINT NS ENE MAUI VO PIR MS AY Tt 1 This settlement provides for a substantial monetary benefit to I.F., throughout her life, for her 2 education, housing expenses, and other financial needs. In light of the benefit that the minor child 3 has received in the litigation, and for the reasons advanced in the motion for approval, the court 4 finds that the settlement is reasonable, and the attorney’s fees and costs are reasonable and 5 appropriate. 6 7 CONCLUSION 8 The court approves the minor’s compromise and orders that the settlement be implemented 9 according to its terms (as described above). The parties must complete all necessary documents, 10 and the defendant must fund the structured annuity by September 30, 2020. The defendants must 11 send a check or wire transfer in the amount of $642,852.44 (the settlement proceeds that are not 12 || being structured) made payable to “Haddad & Sherwin LLP Client Trust Account f/b/o LF.” 5 13 (using her real name) to arrive at the offices of Haddad & Sherwin LLP (or if wired, arrive in the 14 || client trust account) no later than 15 days from this court’s order. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. z 16 Dated: September 14, 2020 Lit EC 8 LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28