Konen v. Caldeira ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JESSICA KONEN, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-05195-EJD 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF 10 v. MINOR'S COMPROMISE 11 LORI CALDEIRA, et al., Re: ECF No. 49 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiffs Jessica Konen and her minor child, A.G.—by and through her court-appointed 14 guardian ad litem, Scott Gerald Konen—brought this suit against the Spreckels Union School 15 District, as well as A.G.’s schoolteachers and principal. The Complaint asserted eight claims: (1) 16 violation of Plaintiff Konen’s Due Process parental rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) conspiracy 17 to violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); (3) intentional infliction of emotion distress; (4) 18 negligence; (5) negligence per se; (6) violation of the Bane Act; and (7) civil conspiracy. 19 During the parties’ participation in a settlement conference with Judge DeMarchi, the 20 parties reached a settlement and subsequently entered into a written settlement agreement, which 21 was fully executed on June 16, 2023. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs filed the present Unopposed 22 Motion for Approval of Minor’s Compromise. ECF No. 49. 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 25 safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 26 (9th Cir. 2011). “Rule 17(c) provides, in relevant part, that a district court ‘must appoint a 27 guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person 1 who is unrepresented in an action.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). “In the context of 2 proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court 3 to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the 4 minor.’” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). 5 As the Ninth Circuit has recently made clear, in cases involving the settlement of a minor’s 6 federal claims, district courts should “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the 7 net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of 8 the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases,” and should 9 “evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff's net recovery without regard to the proportion of the 10 total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the 11 district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 1181–82. 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 Plaintiffs Konen and A.G. through her guardian ad litem have agreed to settle their claims 14 against Defendants for a total of $100,000. See ECF No. 50, Ex. A (“Settlement Agreement”), at 15 1. This sum is to be split up as follows: $4,000 as full and complete satisfaction of any Medi-Cal 16 liens against Plaintiffs related to this matter; $48,000 to Plaintiff Konen; and $48,000 to Scott 17 Konen as guardian ad litem for A.G., which is to be placed in a bank account that may only be 18 accessed by both A.G.’s and Scott Gerald Konen’s signatures until A.G. reaches the age of 19 majority. No part of the settlement payment will be used to cover attorneys’ fees. 20 Upon review of the Plaintiffs’ unopposed motions and corresponding submissions, as well 21 as the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Court finds this amount to be reasonable and the 22 settlement to be in the best interest of all parties. 23 III. CONCLUSION 24 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Minor’s Compromise is 25 GRANTED. The parties shall promptly file a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of 26 Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 27 The Order to Show Cause Hearing scheduled for July 20, 2023 is hereby VACATED. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: July 17, 2023 3 4 EDWARD J. DAVILA 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 41 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:22-cv-05195-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISE