Reason v. City of Richmond ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 ERIC REASON, an individual; No. 2:20-cv-01900 WBS JDP STEPHANIE BASS, an individual; 13 RASHEED REASON, individually and as Co-Successor-in-Interest to 14 Decedent ERIC REASON II; TYRIQUE ORDER REASON, individually and as Co- 15 Successor-in-Interest to Decedent ERIC REASON II; K.R., 16 individually and as Co- Successor-in-Interest to 17 Decedent ERIC REASON II, by and through his Guardian Ad litem 18 LATISHA PARKER; P.R., individually and as Co- 19 Successor-in-Interest to Decedent ERIC REASON II, by and 20 through his Guardian Ad Litem LATISHA PARKER; N.M., 21 individually and as Co- Successor-in-Interest to 22 Decedent ERIC REASON II, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem 23 NIA MILLS; E.L.R., individually and as Co-Successor-in-Interest 24 to Decedent ERIC REASON II, by and through his Guardian Ad 25 Litem SHAWNTAY DAVIS; I.R.V., individually and as Co- 26 Successor-in-Interest to Decedent ERIC REASON II, by and 27 through his Guardian Ad Litem JULIA VELASQUEZ; 28 1 Plaintiffs, 2 v. 3 CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal 4 corporation, and the ESTATE OF VIRGIL THOMAS, individually and 5 in his capacity as Police Sergeant for the CITY OF 6 RICHMOND, 7 Defendants. 8 9 ----oo0oo---- 10 On December 6, 2023, the parties settled all claims. 11 (Docket No. 86.) Minor plaintiffs P.R., E.J.R., and I.V.R. now 12 bring unopposed motions to appoint guardians ad litem and for 13 minor’s compromise. (Docket Nos. 97-99.) 14 I. Appointment of Guardians Ad Litem 15 P.R., E.J.R., and I.V.R. each move to appoint their 16 biological mothers, Latisha Parker, Shawntay Davis, and Julia 17 Velasquez, respectively, as guardians ad litem. No objections to 18 these appointments have been raised. Furthermore, plaintiffs’ 19 motions demonstrate that (1) no general guardian has been 20 appointed for any of the minor plaintiffs and no previous 21 petition for guardian ad litem has been filed in this matter; and 22 (2) each guardian is a competent and reasonable person, qualified 23 to become the guardian ad litem of said minors, and consents to 24 act in such a capacity. 25 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motions to appoint guardians 26 ad litem will be granted. 27 II. Minors’ Compromise 28 Minor plaintiffs seek the court’s approval of the 1 parties’ settlement, which would allocate $13,606.14 for each 2 biological child of decedent plaintiff Eric Reason. 3 The Ninth Circuit has determined that Federal Rule of 4 Civil Procedure 17(c) imposes on the court the responsibility to 5 safeguard the interests of child-litigants. See Robidoux v. 6 Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, the court 7 is obligated to independently investigate the fairness of the 8 settlement even where the parent has recommended it. Id. at 9 1181; see also Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 10 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that “a court must independently 11 investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a 12 minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are 13 protected, even if the settlement has been recommended or 14 negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem”). 15 To that end, the parties must disclose to the court, 16 among other things, “the manner in which the compromise amount or 17 other consideration was determined, including such additional 18 information as may be required to enable the Court to determine 19 the fairness of the settlement or compromise . . . .” E.D. Cal. 20 L.R. 202(b)(2). 21 Plaintiffs’ motions supply none of this information. 22 Their moving papers fail to explain how $13,606.14 is a fair and 23 reasonable settlement amount for each minor child. The 24 plaintiffs offer no analysis on the likelihood of success on each 25 of their claims were the case to go to trial. Neither do they 26 substantiate the amount of each category of damages, such as the 27 emotional or financial support that decedent was providing to his 28 children prior to his death or could be expected to provide in eee eR OI IERIE RI IE OE ESE IO 1 the future, or the reasonable funeral and burial expenses that 2} plaintiffs actually incurred. 3 Accordingly, the court cannot presently perform its 4 | obligation of determining whether the $13,606.14 being paid to 5 | each child is “fair and reasonable.” See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 6} 1182. 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the hearing on these 8 motions, currently scheduled on March 18, 2024 be, and the same 9 hereby is VACATED. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motions to 11 appoint guardians ad litem (Docket Nos. 937-99) be, and the same 12 hereby are, GRANTED. Latisha Parker shall be appointed guardian 13 ad litem for minor P.R.; Shawntay Davis shall be appointed 14 guardian ad litem for minor E.J.R; and Julia Velasquez shall be 15 appointed guardian ad litem for minor I.V.R. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motions to 17 approve minor’s compromise (Docket Nos. 937-99) be, and the same 18 | hereby are, DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs are directed to 19 file and notice for hearing amended motions consistent with this 20 order for minor’s compromise within fourteen days of the date of 21 this order. 22 Dated: March 6, 2024 ' 4k. A ble, (hi.te— 23 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28