M. v. Maximus Real Estate Partners, LTD. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 A. M., et al., Case No. 19-cv-06008-TSH 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER APPROVING MINOR'S 9 v. COMPROMISE 10 MAXIMUS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, Re: Dkt. No. 40 LTD., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Guardian Ad Litem Karla Maddox’s Motion for Approval of 14 Minor’s Compromise, in which Maddox requests the Court approve the settlement for A.M. in the 15 amount of $7,500. ECF No. 40. No opposition has been filed. 16 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 17 safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 18 (9th Cir. 2011). “In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this 19 special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the 20 settlement serves the best interests of the minor.’” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 21 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). “In other words, in this context, the fairness determination is an 22 independent, not a comparative, inquiry.” Id. at 1182. Thus, courts must “focus[ ] on the net 23 recovery of the minor plaintiffs under the proposed agreement,” and “limit the scope of their 24 review to the question whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement 25 is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in 26 similar cases.” Id. at 1181-82. “Most importantly, the district court should evaluate the fairness 27 of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value 1 special duty to safeguard.” /d. at 1182 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078). 2 Here, the Court concludes that the settlement should be approved. The settlement amount 3 appears to be fair and reasonable given the facts of the case, the nature of A.M.’s claim and the 4 || probability of success, and the favorable opinions from the Guardian ad Litem and plaintiff's 5 counsel. See Maddox Decl. {[{] 4-7, ECF No. 40-1; Derby Decl. §] 5, ECF No. 40-2. In addition, 6 || the settlement is in line with similar settlements, including the settlement approved by the Ninth 7 || Circuit in Robidoux for similar claims of denial of fair housing rights for very young plaintiffs like 8 || A.M. 638 F.3d at 1180. Because of her disability, A.M. like those very young plaintiffs can only 9 || go outside with her parent’s help. Maddox Decl. ¥ 4. Therefore, using an approach approved in 10 || Robidoux, the Court finds the interests of A.M. are safeguarded. 11 Typically, the Court must also determine a reasonable attorney’s fee, using the factors set 12 forth in California Rule of Court 7.955. A.G. v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 2018 WL 5911569, at *4 5 13 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2018). However, the parties’ agreement includes confidential amounts being 14 || paid separately to settle the claims of A.M.’s parents and to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys fees, costs 15 and litigation expenses. Therefore, the entire $7,500 allotted to A.M. in the settlement will go to a 16 || her parents to be used for A.M.’s needs as they see fit. 3 17 Accordingly, the Court now orders as follows: S 18 1. The motion to approve minor’s compromise is GRANTED. 19 2. Counsel for A.M. is instructed to take all necessary steps to complete the settlement and 20 obtain the funds in the amount of $7,500 for A.M. and distribute those funds to Plaintiffs Karla 21 Maddox and Howard Maddox, her custodial parents, to be used for A.M.’s needs as they see fit. 22 3. Proof of compliance with Paragraph Two of this order shall be filed within 28 days of 23 issuance of this order and shall be accompanied by either a proposed form of judgment or written 24 || request for dismissal. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: September 21, 2020 27 LU \ : — THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge