A.R., a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Monica Miner v. ERIC HERNANDEZ, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 28, 2026
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01539
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.R., a minor, by and through her Case No.: 24-cv-1539-SBC Guardian Ad Litem, Monica Miner, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 AMENDED UNOPPOSED EX PARTE v. APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF 14 COMPROMISE OF A MINOR’S ERIC HERNANDEZ, et al., 15 CLAIM [DKT. NO. 37] Defendants. 16

17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Unopposed Ex Parte Application 19 for Approval of Compromise of a Minor’s Claim filed by Plaintiff A.R., a minor, by and 20 through her guardian ad litem, Petitioner Monica Miner. (Dkt. No. 37.) The application 21 seeks Court approval of a settlement involving a minor, distribution of the settlement funds, 22 and the purchase of a structured annuity using the minor’s settlement proceeds. For the 23 reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s application is GRANTED. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 A. Factual Background 26 The following factual background is taken from the allegations in Plaintiff’s First 27 Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 13.) A.R., the minor Plaintiff, was born in 2022 to Makayla 28 Adams (“Adams”) and Michael Ricks (“Ricks”). The relationship between Adams and 1 Ricks was complicated by domestic violence, with Ricks physically abusing Adams 2 throughout the relationship and often threatening to kill her. Ricks was incarcerated during 3 Adams’s pregnancy and Plaintiff’s infancy. In the summer of 2022, Ricks was released on 4 parole to a Southern California probation facility located in Vista, California. Defendant 5 Hernandez was Ricks’s parole officer. In the months and days before September 13, 2022, 6 both Adams and her mother, Petitioner Monica Miner, communicated frequently with 7 Defendant Hernandez to express Adams’s fear that Ricks would kill her and Plaintiff due 8 to numerous threats by Ricks to do so. In early July 2022, Adams moved to her parents’ 9 home in Las Vegas, Nevada. Both Adams and Miner advised Defendant Hernandez that 10 Ricks knew where the Miners lived, and that Adams remained in danger from Ricks. 11 Defendant Hernandez promised Adams that if Ricks were to leave the Community Program 12 in which he was placed, Hernandez would immediately notify Adams. 13 On September 13, 2022, Defendant Hernandez met with Ricks at the Community 14 Program. Shortly thereafter, Ricks left the Program without authorization. Defendant 15 Hernandez was informed that Ricks had left and that the Program did not know where he 16 was. Defendant Hernandez did not contact Adams or Miner as he had promised. After 17 Ricks left the Community Program, he drove to Las Vegas, where he suddenly appeared at 18 the Miner home. There, while Adams held her baby (Plaintiff A.R.), Ricks viciously 19 stabbed and murdered Adams. 20 B. Procedural Background 21 On August 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Hernandez and 22 Does 1 through 10. (Dkt. No. 1.) On January 28, 2025, following the filing of a motion to 23 dismiss by Defendant Hernandez, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 13.) 24 The Amended Complaint alleges claims for (1) violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 25 § 1983 against Defendant Hernandez; (2) negligence against Does 1 through 10; and 26 (3) fraud against Does 1 through 10. (Id.) 27 On April 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard held an Early Neutral 28 Evaluation Conference (“ENE”). (Dkt. No. 18.) The case did not settle, but Judge Goddard 1 ordered the parties to engage in limited discovery and set an additional ENE. (Dkt. No. 19.) 2 Judge Goddard held an all-day second ENE on November 14, 2025, and made a mediator’s 3 proposal at the conclusion of the conference. (Dkt. No. 24.) On November 20, 2025, Judge 4 Goddard issued a docket order indicating that the parties had accepted the mediator’s 5 proposal, and the case had settled. (Dkt. No. 25.) 6 On November 21, 2025, this case was referred to the undersigned for the purpose of 7 assessing the proposed settlement. (Dkt. No. 26.) On January 7, 2026, pursuant to the 8 consent of the parties, the case was referred to the undersigned to conduct all proceedings 9 and order entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. 10 P. 73. (Dkt. No. 31.) 11 On January 12, 2026, Plaintiff, by and through Petitioner, filed her initial Unopposed 12 Ex Parte Application for Approval of Compromise of a Minor’s Claim. (Dkt. No. 34.) The 13 Court held a hearing on the application on January 21, 2026, and granted time for Plaintiff 14 to file an amended application. (Dkt. No. 36.) On January 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed the 15 amended application presently before the Court. (Dkt. No. 37.) 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Local Civil Rule 17.1 addresses settlements involving minors: 18 Order of Judgment Required. No action by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, or in which a minor or incompetent has an interest, will be 19 settled, compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated 20 without court order or judgment. All settlements and compromises must be reviewed by a magistrate judge before any order of approval will issue. The 21 parties may, with district judge approval consent to magistrate judge 22 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for entry of an order approving the entire settlement or compromise. 23

24 CivLR 17.1(a). 25 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 27 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). To carry out this duty, the court must “conduct its own 28 inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. 1 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). In Robidoux, the 2 Ninth Circuit established that district courts reviewing the settlement of a minor’s federal 3 claim should “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net amount 4 distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the 5 facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1181-82. 6 District courts should “evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without 7 regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or 8 plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. 9 at 1182 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078). “So long as the net recovery to each minor 10 plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery in similar cases, 11 the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the parties.” Id. 12 The Ninth Circuit limited its holding in Robidoux “to cases involving the settlement 13 of a minor’s federal claims” and did “not express a view on the proper approach for a 14 federal court to use when sitting in diversity and approving the settlement of a minor’s state 15 law claims.” Id. at 1179 n.2. Under California law, the court is tasked with evaluating the 16 reasonableness of the settlement and determining whether the compromise is in the best 17 interest of the minor. See A.M.L. v. Cernaianu, LA CV12-06082 JAK (RZx), 2014 WL 18 12588992, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014) (citations omitted). The California Probate Code 19 “bestows broad power on the court to authorize payment from the settlement—to say who 20 and what will be paid from the minor’s money—as well as direct certain individuals to pay 21 it.” Goldberg v. Superior Court, 23 Cal. App. 4th 1378, 1382, 28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 613 (Cal. 22 Ct. App. 1994) (analyzing Cal. Prob. Code § 3601). The Probate Code also authorizes the 23 court approving a compromise of a minor’s disputed claim to “make a further order 24 authorizing and directing that reasonable expenses, . . . costs, and attorney’s fees, as the 25 court shall approve and allow therein, shall be paid from the money or other property to be 26 paid or delivered for the benefit of the minor.” Cal. Prob. Code § 3601(a). 27 /// 28 /// 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 The parties have agreed to settle Plaintiff A.R.’s claim for $250,000.00. (Dkt. No. 3 37 at 3.) The proposed distribution of the settlement is as follows: 4 $55,000.00 in attorney’s fees, payable to Plaintiff’s attorney, which comprises 22% of the $250,000.00 settlement (a reduction from the 25% contingency 5 fee set forth in the retainer agreement signed by Petitioner) (see id. at 5-6; 6 Dkt. No. 37-1 at 4);

7 $4,557.47 in costs, payable to Plaintiff’s attorney (Dkt. No. 37 at 6; Dkt. No. 8 37-1 at 4);

9 $25,000.00 to be disbursed to Petitioner Monica Miner, Plaintiff’s 10 grandmother and now adoptive mother, to be used to care for Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 37 at 7, 9; Dkt. No. 37-1 at 6, 8); and 11

12 $165,442.53 to be disbursed to fund a structured settlement annuity for Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 37 at 7, 9; Dkt. No. 37-1 at 6, 7). 13

14 Plaintiff A.R.’s settlement funds of $165,442.53 will be used to purchase a structured 15 settlement annuity, which will yield a net total of $408,016.56. (Dkt No. 37 at 9; Dkt No. 16 37-1 at 13.) The structured settlement annuity provides for guaranteed payments of 17 $4,857.34 payable monthly for seven years, beginning on January 9, 2040, with the last 18 guaranteed payment on December 9, 2046. (Dkt. No. 37 at 9; Dkt. No. 37-1 at 13.) 19 In reviewing a petition to approve a minor’s compromise, the court should evaluate 20 “whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and 21 reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in 22 similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. Here, the proposed net recovery for Plaintiff 23 is $165,442.53. Considering the facts of the case, Plaintiff’s claims, and recoveries in 24 similar cases, Plaintiff’s net recovery is fair, reasonable, and in Plaintiff’s best interests for 25 the reasons discussed below. 26 First, although Plaintiff’s mother was stabbed to death while she was holding 27 Plaintiff in her arms (Dkt. No. 37 at 4), Plaintiff was an infant at the time and has little to 28 no memory of the event. (Id.) She did not suffer any physical harm, receive medical or 1 psychological care, or incur any medical bills because of the incident. (Id. at 4-5.) Thus far, 2 she has not indicated any need for psychiatric treatment. (Id.) 3 Second, the net settlement amount is consistent with or exceeds settlements in 4 similar cases. See, e.g., Castro Gutierrez v. City of San Diego, Case No. 21-cv-1292-H- 5 BGS (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2023) (approving net payment of $150,000.00 to four-year-old 6 plaintiff in civil rights wrongful death case involving the shooting death of the minor’s 7 father); E.S. by and through Gonzalez v. City of Visalia, Case No. 1:13-cv-1697-LJO- 8 BAM, 2015 WL 6956837, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015), report and recommendation 9 adopted, 2015 WL 13215675 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015) (approving a minor’s compromise 10 for net payment of $130,444.83 in action involving the shooting and killing of minor’s 11 father); Frary v. Cnty. of Marin, Case No. 12-cv-03928-MEJ, 2015 WL 575818, at *3 12 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2015) (finding minor’s net settlement of $92,305.48 to be reasonable 13 and in minor’s best interests in action alleging that omissions by county personnel resulted 14 in minor’s father’s in-custody death). 15 Third, the parties reached the terms of the proposed settlement by accepting a 16 mediator’s proposal issued by Magistrate Judge Goddard following two Early Neutral 17 Evaluation Conferences, the second of which was a full-day session. (Dkt. Nos. 18, 24, 18 25.) See, e.g., Parenti v. Cnty. of Monterey, Case No. 14-cv-05481-BLF, 2019 WL 19 1245145, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2019) (approving a minor’s compromise as reasonable 20 in part because “the parties engaged in extensive negotiations with a magistrate judge to 21 reach settlement”). 22 Fourth, the proposed payment of $25,000.00 to be used to care for Plaintiff is fair, 23 reasonable, and in the minor’s best interests. See, e.g., Garlick v. Cnty. of Kern, Case No.: 24 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT, 2016 WL 4087057, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016), report and 25 recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 4445852 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) (approving 26 $10,695.98 of $132,000.00 net settlement to be paid immediately to minor’s 27 mother/guardian ad litem to provide her daughter a laptop, ballet lessons, and orthodontia 28 services). Petitioner has provided documentation reflecting that she lives in public housing, 1 her monthly rent is $293.00, and she is in arrears on her rent in the amount of $1,673.65, 2 as of January 7, 2026. (Dkt. No. 37 at 9; Dkt. No. 37-1 at 15-17.) She also stated during 3 the hearing that A.R. attends daycare at the cost of $215.00 per week. A current payment 4 of $25,000.00 to Petitioner to be used to maintain the family’s residence and provide other 5 care to Plaintiff, including daycare, is to the minor’s benefit. 6 Moreover, Petitioner proposes that Plaintiff’s settlement funds of $165,442.53 be 7 used to purchase a structured settlement annuity, which will yield a net total of 8 $408,016.56. (Dkt No. 37-1 at 13.) Specifically, the proposed structured settlement 9 provides for guaranteed monthly payments of $4,857.34 for seven years, beginning on 10 Plaintiff’s eighteenth birthday, January 9, 2040, until December 9, 2046. (Id.) Petitioner 11 obtained confirmation of the structured settlement annuity from Marjorie Smith, Certified 12 Financial Planner, of Sage Settlement Consulting, LLC. (Id.) The quote is based on rates 13 from Athene Annuity and Life Company, rated A+XV by A.M. Best Co. (Id.)1 14 In addition to assessing whether the settlement is fair and reasonable, the Court, 15 under California law, must approve the attorney’s fees and costs to be paid for 16 representation of a minor. See Cal. Prob. Code § 3601. This requirement applies “regardless 17 of whether the [minor’s] claims arise under state or federal law.” Alter by & through Alter 18 v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 21-cv-1709-BLM, 2023 WL 4166096, at *5 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 19 2023). Where, as here, “the recipient of the money or property is not a California resident, 20 21 22 23 1 A.M. Best Co. is a global credit rating agency specializing in the insurance industry. See A.M. Best, https://web.ambest.com/about/ [https://perma.cc/MX8M-HVAU] (last visited 24 Jan. 13, 2026). An “A+” rating is assigned to insurance companies that have a superior 25 ability to meet their ongoing insurance obligations. See A.M. Best, https://www.ambest.com/ratings/guide.pdf [https://perma.cc/45U3-8F7T] (last visited Jan. 26 13, 2026). The “XV” designation reflects an insurance company with greater than or equal 27 to $2 billion in capital and surplus. See A.M. Best, https://www3.ambest.com/ambv/ratingmethodology/OpenPDF.aspx?rc=333374 28 1 disbursement must occur pursuant to court restrictions which are similar to those of 2 [California Probate Code § 3600], et seq.” (CivLR 17.1(b)(1).) 3 Where counsel represents a minor on a contingency fee basis, attorney’s fees are 4 generally limited to 25% of the gross recovery. See, e.g., Doe v. Lincoln Mil. Prop. Mgmt., 5 LP, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00224-GPC-AHG, 2020 WL 5810168, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 6 2020); DeRuyver v. Omni La Costa Resort & Spa, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-0516-H-AGS, 2020 7 WL 563551, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2020). To determine whether the fee is reasonable, 8 courts consider a myriad of factors including the amount of the fee in proportion to the 9 value of the services performed, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and 10 skills required, the amount involved and the results obtained, and the experience and ability 11 of the attorney. Cal. R. Ct. 7.955(b). Here, Plaintiff’s counsel requests 22% of the gross 12 settlement amount. Under the facts and circumstances of this action, the requested 13 attorney’s fees are fair and reasonable. Additionally, the Court finds that the costs incurred 14 by Plaintiff’s counsel are fair and reasonable. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Amended Unopposed Ex Parte 17 Application for Approval of Compromise of a Minor’s Claim filed by Plaintiff A.R., a 18 minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Petitioner Monica Miner (Dkt. No. 37) is 19 GRANTED. The Court approves the distribution of the settlement funds as follows: 20 Gross Settlement $250,000.00 21 Gross Settlement Amount to Plaintiff A.R. $165,442.53 22 Disbursement to Petitioner Monica Miner $ 25,000.00 to be used to care for Plaintiff 23

24 Attorney’s Fees $ 55,000.00 25 Costs $ 4,557.47 26 27 Plaintiff A.R.’s settlement funds of $165,442.53 are to be used to purchase a 28 structured settlement annuity, which will provide monthly payments of $4,857.34 for seven 1 || years, beginning on January 9, 2040, until December 9, 2046, yielding a net total of 2 |1$408,016.56, in accordance with Exhibit | to the Court’s order. 3 In light of this order, Plaintiff's initial Unopposed Ex Parte Application for Approval 4 || of Compromise of a Minor’s Claim (Dkt. No. 34) is DENIED AS MOOT. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: January 28, 2026 7 BF A.

10 United States Magistrate Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit 1 to

Court’s Order CONFIRMATION OF STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT ANNUITY FOR A.R Date of Birth: 00/00/2022 This quote is based on rates from Athene Annuity and Life Company Rated A+XV by A.M. Best Co. Purchase Date: 04/05/2026 COURT EXHIBIT Guaranteed Cost Benefits Guaranteed Payments $4,857.34 payable monthly, guaranteed for 7 year(s), beginning on 01/09/2040, with the last guaranteed payment on 12/09/2046. TOTAL $165,442.53 $408,016.56 It is understood that the Defendant and/or Insurer shall make a qualified assignment under Section 130 of the Internal Revenue Code to Athene Qualified Assignment Company to fund the obligation to make payments through the purchase of an Annuity from Athene Annuity and Life Company, who shall make the future periodic payments. The projected purchase date of the annuity policy is 04/05/2026. Any delay in funding the annuity may result in a delay of the payment dates by an equal number of days, or a change in the payment amounts that shall be accurately recorded in the qualified assignment and release document and annuity contract without the need of obtaining an amended Petition or Court Order. A comparably rated life insurance company may be substituted to obtain the best interest rates available at the time of funding. Note: ❖ A structured settlement annuity is income tax-free for personal injury victims under IRC 104 (a) ❖ Illustrated benefits are fixed (guaranteed) and will not vary once locked-in ❖ IRR: 5.41% ***This quote is LOCKED-IN*** If premium is not received by assumed purchase date the above benefits may change.