Yaqub v. Paynter. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RAHAT YAQUB, Case No. 1:23-cv-01482-EPG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT 12 v. (ECF No. 34) 13 JACOB PAYNTER, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on the application by Plaintiff Rahat Yaqub to approve the 17 parties’ settlement in this case. (ECF No. 34). The parties have consented to proceed before the 18 undersigned for all proceedings in this case. (ECF No. 32). 19 Having considered the application, the terms of the settlement, and the record in this 20 matter, the Court finds the proposed settlement to be fair and reasonable and in Plaintiff’s best interest. Thus, the Court will approve the settlement. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding through counsel, filed the complaint 23 commencing this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). The complaint alleged 24 violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by 25 City of Merced police officers Paynter and Gaona-Santillan. (Id.). The same day the complaint 26 was filed, Plaintiff’s sister, Sadia Yaqub, filed an ex parte application to be appointed Plaintiff’s 27 guardian ad litem based on Plaintiff’s mental incompetency. (ECF No. 2). The Court granted the 28 1 motion on October 24, 2023, and the case proceeded with Plaintiff acting by and through Ms. 2 Yaqub as his guardian ad litem. (ECF No. 7). 3 On March 19, 2024, the parties participated in a settlement conference before the 4 undersigned and reached a settlement. (ECF No. 28). On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff, by and through his guardian ad litem, filed a motion for approval of settlement. (ECF No. 34). The motion 5 included a statement by Plaintiff’s counsel, Che L. Hashim, that Plaintiff desired to make his own 6 decisions about the disbursement of settlement funds, and, “Counsel cannot state that at this 7 time[] Plaintiff lacks, based on [Counsel’s] personal observation of, and discussions with 8 Plaintiff, such capacity.” (Id. at 131). No objections were made to Plaintiff’s motion. 9 On August 23, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the motion. (ECF No. 41). At the 10 hearing, the Court questioned both Plaintiff and his counsel regarding Plaintiff’s mental capacity 11 and his ability to understand the nature of the action and consequences of settlement. Plaintiff’s 12 counsel confirmed that he had spoken with Plaintiff about the risks and benefits associated with 13 settlement, including the possibility that Plaintiff will be ineligible for needs-based public 14 benefits. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court found that Plaintiff was sufficiently 15 competent to make his own decisions regarding settlement, and to effectively assist his counsel in 16 doing so.2 Additionally, the Court noted that the parties agreed that the settlement was fair and 17 reasonable and adequately reflected the risks and benefits of settlement. 18 II. TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT 19 Defendants have agreed to pay Plaintiff $800,000.00. (ECF No. 34 at 4). From this 20 amount, $264,000.00 (or a 1/3 contingency fee) will be deducted for attorney fees, and Plaintiff’s 21 counsel has agreed to waive reimbursement for all costs. (Id.). This will leave a net total of 22 $536,000.00 payable to Plaintiff Rahat Yaqub. (Id.). 23 Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that Plaintiff’s case, if valued for purposes of damages only, is likely valued between $25,000.00 to $50,000.00, and punitive damages would likely not exceed 24 $50,000.00. (Id. at 4, 8). Considering the probable value of Plaintiff’s case and other litigation 25 considerations, Plaintiff agreed that the settlement amount was reasonable. (ECF No. 34-1 at 2). 26 27 1 Page numbers refer to the pagination noted at the bottom of cited documents. 2 The Court also discharged Sadia Yaqub as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem at the conclusion of the hearing. 28 (ECF No. 42). 1 Plaintiff’s counsel has been practicing for 18 years as a trial lawyer in criminal defense, 2 civil rights, personal injury, and employment law, which Counsel contends, “makes [him] 3 particularly well-suited to understand the procedural and substantive overlap of the parallel 4 criminal and civil proceedings, and the leverage points to extract maximum value in settlement for Mr. Yaqub.” (Id.) 5 III. LEGAL STANDARDS 6 Local Rule 202 governs approval of an incompetent person’s settlement. It states, in 7 relevant part: 8 9 (b) Settlement. No claim by or against a minor or incompetent person may be settled or compromised absent an order by the Court approving the settlement or 10 compromise. 11 (1) Initial State Court Approval. In actions in which the minor or incompetent is represented by an appointed representative pursuant to appropriate state law, 12 excepting only those actions in which the United States courts have exclusive 13 jurisdiction, the settlement or compromise shall first be approved by the state court having jurisdiction over the personal representative. Following such approval, a 14 copy of the order and all supporting and opposing documents filed in connection therewith shall be filed in the District Court with a copy to all parties and to the 15 Judge or Magistrate Judge who may either approve the settlement or compromise without hearing or calendar the matter for hearing. 16 17 (2) Approval in All Other Actions. In all other actions, the motion for approval of a proposed settlement or compromise shall be filed and calendared pursuant to 18 L.R. 230. The application shall disclose, among other things, the age and sex of the minor or incompetent, the nature of the causes of action to be settled or 19 compromised, the facts and circumstances out of which the causes of action arose, including the time, place and persons involved, the manner in which the 20 compromise amount or other consideration was determined, including such 21 additional information as may be required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement or compromise, and, if a personal injury claim, the nature 22 and extent of the injury with sufficient particularity to inform the Court whether the injury is temporary or permanent. 23 Local Rule 202(b)(1)-(2). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) also imposes on district courts a special duty to 25 safeguard the interests of litigants who are incompetent persons. Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 26 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). The court’s special duty requires it to “conduct its own inquiry to 27 determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the [incompetent person].” Id. 28 1 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); see Smith v. City of 2 Stockton, 185 F. Supp.3d 1242, 1243-44 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (although Robidoux concerned a minor, 3 applying Robidoux to a disabled adult plaintiff). In this inquiry, the district court is required to 4 evaluate “whether the net amount distributed to each [incompetent] plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the [incompetent person’s] specific claim, and 5 recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. 6 IV. DISCUSSION 7 Plaintiff’s motion for settlement approval discloses the following information under Local 8 Rule 202(b)(2): Plaintiff was an incompetent adult at the time this action commenced, but 9 currently possesses the legal capacity to make decisions; the cause of action involves violations of 10 Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights and rights under California law, stemming from an 11 unreasonable seizure by law enforcement; an overview of how the case was settled at a settlement 12 conference; and other information to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement, 13 including an overview of Plaintiff’s counsel’s experience, a comparison of Plaintiff’s case with 14 another similar civil rights case, and challenges with proceeding with further litigation. (ECF No. 15 34 at 2-8). 16 As to whether the net settlement amount is fair and reasonable in light of the facts of the 17 case and claim, it appears, based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s representations that Plaintiff’s case 18 would likely be valued at no more than $50,000.00 on damages alone, that “significant additional 19 discovery” would have been required to pursue the claim against the City of Merced, and that 20 protracted litigation would have caused disruption, embarrassment, and tension for Defendants, 21 that a settlement was in the best interests for all involved. (Id. at 4-5, 7-8). Plaintiff will ultimately 22 receive $536,000.00 after the deduction of attorney fees, more than ten times the value of his case 23 based solely on damages. Additionally, the Court gives weight to the fact that the settlement was reached following 24 a court-facilitated settlement conference. Moreover, the Court notes that all the parties have stated 25 that they support this settlement agreement.3 26 Based on these circumstances, the Court concludes that the settlement is fair and 27 28 3 Plaintiff’s previous guardian ad litem also agreed with the terms of the settlement. (ECF No. 34 at 3). 1 | reasonable for Plaintiff, and was reached in good faith. 2 V. ORDER 3 Based on the above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application for approval of the 4 | settlement (ECF No. 34) is approved. 5 By no later than October 22, 2024, the parties shall file an appropriate dispositional 6 document to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 | Dated: _ September 18, 2024 [spe ey □□ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28