Hamilton v. K-D-W Santa Clara ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JENEEN HAMILTON, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01066-VKD 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING AMENDED 10 v. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISE 11 K-D-W SANTA CLARA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 34 Defendants. 12 13 14 In this disability rights action, plaintiffs Jeneen Hamilton and her daughter, Faith Hamilton 15 (a minor), sue for alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 16 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), 17 Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. According to their complaint, Faith Hamilton is a disabled individual, 18 and plaintiffs claim that during a December 2018 visit to a Fish Market restaurant in Santa Clara, 19 California, architectural barriers in the women’s restroom precluded full and equal access to the 20 facilities. Dkt. No. 1. As a result, plaintiffs allege that they had to use the men’s restroom, which 21 caused them embarrassment. Id. ¶¶ 15-16. Plaintiffs further allege that they have been deterred 22 from returning to the restaurant, knowing that there is no accessible women’s restroom. Id. ¶ 22. 23 Plaintiffs advised that the parties reached a settlement, and then subsequently moved for 24 approval of the settlement of Faith Hamilton’s claims. Dkt. Nos. 23, 31. Although plaintiffs’ 25 motion was unopposed, it contained discrepancies and did not provide sufficient information for 26 the Court to determine whether the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the 27 case, Faith Hamilton’s specific claims, and recovery in similar cases. See Robidoux v. Rosengren, 1 Now before the Court is plaintiffs’ amended motion for approval of the settlement of Faith 2 Hamilton’s claims. Plaintiffs state that defendants do not oppose the motion. Upon consideration 3 of the motion and supporting papers, the Court grants the motion, finding that the settlement is fair 4 and reasonable. 5 Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with the underlying settlement agreement, but they 6 state that the parties have agreed upon remedial measures to resolve plaintiffs’ ADA claim and a 7 total monetary settlement of $25,000. With respect to the ADA claim, defendants will provide an 8 accessible women’s restroom at the restaurant by June 2022.1 In the interim, defendants will 9 implement a written policy, along with signage, permitting persons with disabilities to access the 10 men’s restroom. Dkt. No. 34 at 3. 11 The $25,000 settlement is to be apportioned as follows: $4,500 to Faith Hamilton, $8,500 12 to Jeneen Hamilton,2 and $12,000 to plaintiffs’ counsel in fees and costs. Id. at 6-7. Faith 13 Hamilton’s share of the settlement will be distributed to Jeneen Hamilton, who avers that the sums 14 will be used to pay for Faith’s benefit, including for ongoing physical therapy costs. Dkt. No. 34- 15 1 ¶ 4. Although Jeneen Hamilton’s declaration is somewhat vague, she seems to indicate that 16 settlement sums not otherwise allocated specifically for Faith will be used to pay for Faith’s other 17 immediate and recurring health expenses. Id. ¶¶ 5-7. As for the $12,000 to be distributed to 18 plaintiffs’ counsel in fees and costs, counsel avers that the total fees and costs incurred are 19 $10,403, and that the settlement reflects a reduction in the additional amount that counsel state 20 they otherwise would be entitled to receive under their fee agreement with plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 34- 21 3 ¶¶ 6-8. 22 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 23 safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181. “In the context 24 1 Plaintiffs state that they have agreed on a longer period of time for the renovations due to delays 25 in the process for obtaining necessary permits and inspections. 26 2 The award to Jeneen Hamilton is based on 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(E), which provides: “It shall be discriminatory to exclude or otherwise deny equal goods, services, facilities, privileges, 27 advantages, accommodations, or other opportunities to an individual or entity because of the 1 of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district 2 court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of 3 the minor.’” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir.1978)). “In other 4 words, in this context, the fairness determination is an independent, not a comparative inquiry.” 5 Id. at 1182. Thus, courts must “focus[] on the net recovery of the minor plaintiffs under the 6 proposed agreement,” and “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net amount 7 distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of 8 the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1181-82. “Most 9 importantly, the district court should evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery 10 without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or 11 plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 12 1182. Although the Ninth Circuit expressly limited its holding in Robidoux to cases involving the 13 settlement of a minor’s federal claims, see id. at 1179 n.2, courts in this district have applied the 14 Robidoux standard in cases involving the settlement of both federal and state claims. See J.R. by 15 and through Ringer v. Lakeport Unified Sch. Dist. No. C18-06211 WHA, 2019 WL 6219034, at 16 *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019) (citing cases). 17 As noted above, the present settlement has resulted in an agreement to provide an 18 accessible women’s restroom at the restaurant. Additionally, plaintiffs point out that the $4,500 19 allocated to Faith Hamilton exceeds the minimum statutory damages available under the Unruh 20 Act, which provides a minimum statutory damages award of $4,000 “for each occasion an 21 individual is denied equal access to an establishment covered by the Unruh Act . . ..” Ridola v. 22 Chao, No. 16-cv-02246-BLF, 2018 WL 2287668, at *15 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2018) (citing Cal. 23 Civ. Code § 52(a)).3 Although plaintiffs have not cited the recovery obtained by claimants in 24 similar cases, the Court finds that the proposed settlement amount for Faith Hamilton’s claims are 25 commensurate with, or greater than, recovery obtained in analogous civil rights matters. See, e.g., 26 3 Plaintiffs indicate that, inasmuch as Faith Hamilton is unable to patronize the restaurant without 27 her mother, she has not been separately deterred from visiting the restaurant. Accordingly, the 1 Allison v. Gramercy YZE, LLC, No. CV-14-00862-MWE (RZx), 2014 WL 12569372 (C.D. Cal. 2 Dec. 9, 2014) (approving, in a housing discrimination case, a settlement of $23,330, with $1,000 3 to be distributed to each of the four minor plaintiffs, and the remaining sums to be divided 4 || between the adult plaintiff and plaintiffs’ counsel); Bagley v. Miller & Desatnik Mgmt. Co., Inc., 5 || No. CV-13-03784-MWF (JJEMx), 2014 WL 12607674 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (approving, in a 6 || housing discrimination case, a settlement of $1,500 to the minor plaintiff, with defendants to pay 7 undisclosed sums to the adult plaintiffs from which fees would be deducted); Hameed v. Kohl’s 8 Corp., No. C 1102971 LB, 2012 WL 1356033 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2012) (approving, in a civil 9 || rights case alleging that plaintiffs were falsely accused of shoplifting, a total settlement of 10 $10,000, with $2,500 to be allocated for attorney’s fees, and each plaintiff to receive $2,500). 11 Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs’ unopposed amended motion for approval of minor’s 12 || compromise is granted. The Court re-sets the deadline for filing a stipulated dismissal to June 30, 13 2020. If a dismissal is not filed by that date, then the parties shall file a status report by July 2, 14 || 2020 and appear on July 7, 2020, 10:00 a.m. and show cause, if any, why the case should not be 3 15 dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Ifa dismissal is filed as ordered, the July 7, 2020 a 16 show cause hearing will be automatically vacated and the parties need not file a statement in 3 17 response to this Order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: June 2, 2020 20 21 Unig Z. Me Marche VIRGINIA K. DEMARCH 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28