Kimiko P. v. Alta California Regional Center ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 Kimiko P., a conserved adult; by and through CASE NO.: 2:19-cv-00068-KJM-CKD her conservators Mariko Peshon McGarry, 14 Randolph Peshon, and Teresa Peshon,, PLAINTIFF’S ORDER FOR APPROVAL 15 Plaintiffs, OF SETTLEMENT ON BEHALF OF A CONSERVED ADULT 16 v. 17 Alta California Regional Center, On My Own, and Placer ARC, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 This proposed settlement would resolve a claim of liability for defendant’s inability to 22 prevent self-destructive sexual practices by a conserved adult placed in their care. Compl., ECF 23 No. 5–6. 24 District courts have a duty to protect the interests of minor or incompetent 25 litigants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2) (requiring court “appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue 26 another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an 27 action”). This special duty requires a district court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine 28 whether the settlement serves the best interests of ” the protected person. Robidoux v. 1 Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 2 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); see also E.D. Cal. L. R. 202(b) (“No claim by or against a minor or 3 incompetent person may be settled or compromised absent an order by the Court approving the 4 settlement or compromise.”). 5 The Ninth Circuit instructs district courts to “limit the scope of their review to the 6 question of whether the net amount distributed to each [ ] plaintiff in the settlement is fair and 7 reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the [plaintiff’s] specific claim, and recovery in 8 similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82. This requires the court to “evaluate the fairness 9 of each [ ] plaintiff's net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value 10 designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no 11 special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 1182. 12 Having read and considered the Plaintiff’s Petition for Approval of Kimiko P.’s Petition 13 For Approval of Settlement the court finds good cause for the relief sought therein, and it is 14 hereby ordered that: 15 1. The petition is granted and the Kimiko P.’s compromise is approved. 16 2. The District shall issue a check in the amount of $10,000 to plaintiff’s counsel, the 17 Shaw Firm, which is directed to deposit the full amount in its client trust account. 18 3. Once Kimiko P.’s conservators have established an ABLE Savings Account, the 19 Shaw Firm is directed to deposit the $10,000 in that account. 20 4. The parties are to file a stipulated dismissal as to Placer ARC only, within thirty days 21 of delivery of the settlement proceeds. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 DATED: November 5, 2020. 24 25 26 27 28