Bradley v. County of Sonoma

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RANDI BRADLEY, et al., Case No. 19-cv-07464-KAW

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. APPROVE MINOR'S COMPROMISE

10 COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 73 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiffs Randi Bradley and A.B. filed the instant case against Defendants, asserting that 14 Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights when they separated Plaintiffs. (See First 15 Amended Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 8, Dkt. No. 66.) Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to 16 approve a minor’s compromise. (Pl.’s Mot. to Approve, Dkt. No. 73.) No oppositions were filed. 17 The Court deems this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Civil 18 Local Rule 7-1(b). Having considered Plaintiffs’ motion and supplemental brief, as well as the 19 relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS the motion to approve. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff Bradley obtained guardianship of Plaintiff A.B. in May 2008 and adopted Plaintiff 22 A.B. in December 2016. (FAC ¶¶ 49-50.) In October 2018, Defendants began investigating 23 Plaintiffs after being informed that Plaintiff Bradley’s ex-husband, Brian Brown, had made a 24 sexually explicit video in 2017. (FAC ¶¶ 74, 77, 84, 86.) Mr. Brown is a registered sex offender 25 for indecent exposure in 2006; the incident did not involve children. (FAC ¶ 93.) In the video, 26 Mr. Brown used the name of the woman he had an online sexual relationship with, which was the 27 same given name as Plaintiff A.B. (FAC ¶¶ 79, 83.) 1 Defendant Fraley that she had a good relationship with Mr. Brown, and that he had never acted 2 inappropriately towards her. (FAC ¶¶ 113-18.) Defendant Fraley did not believe Plaintiff A.B. 3 was hiding information or withholding. (FAC ¶ 122.) Defendant Fraley also met with Plaintiff 4 Bradley, telling Plaintiff Bradley that she believed the video showed Mr. Brown’s intent to 5 sexually assault A.B. (FAC ¶ 135.) Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Fraley was upset and in 6 disbelief that Plaintiff Bradley did not come to the same conclusion, which surprised Plaintiff 7 Bradley because she knew Defendant Fraley had already spoken to Plaintiff A.B. (FAC ¶¶ 138- 8 145.) Regardless, Plaintiff Bradley agreed to sign a safety plan stating that Mr. Brown would not 9 be around the house or Plaintiff A.B. during the investigation. (FAC ¶¶ 146-47.) Defendants did 10 not interview Mr. Brown. (FAC ¶ 161.) 11 Defendants decided to remove Plaintiff A.B. from Plaintiff Bradley’s home. (FAC ¶ 152.) 12 Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ declaration in support of the removal included significant 13 misrepresentations and omissions. (FAC ¶ 154.) A judge granted the removal order, and Plaintiff 14 A.B. was removed that evening. (FAC ¶ 167.) Plaintiff A.B. asked to stay with family friends but 15 was required to stay at a children’s home that night. (FAC ¶¶ 184-85.) The following day, 16 Plaintiff was placed with the family friend. (FAC ¶ 204.) Plaintiffs were separated for twenty 17 days before the case was dropped. (FAC ¶¶ 8, 257.) 18 Plaintiffs then filed the instant case against Defendants. The parties then reached a 19 settlement in the amount of $400,000, with Plaintiff Bradley receiving $150,000 and Plaintiff A.B. 20 receiving $50,000 after attorney’s fees and costs (50% of the settlement per the retainer 21 agreement). (Powell Decl. ¶¶ 7, 10, Dkt. No. 73-1.) Of Plaintiff A.B.’s share, $15,000 will be 22 placed in a blocked savings account which she will be unable to access until she reaches 18 years 23 of age. The remaining $35,000 will be used to purchase a structured settlement annuity. (Powell 24 Decl. ¶ 7.) The distribution was based on consultations with an annuity consultant and certified 25 financial planner, taking into account current interest rates. (Powell Decl. ¶ 9.) 26 II. LEGAL STANDARD 27 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 1 (9th Cir. 2011). “[T]his special duty requires a district court to conduct its own inquiry to 2 determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. (internal quotation 3 omitted). Thus, the district court considers whether the settlement, including any net recovery, “is 4 fair and reasonable as to each minor plaintiff.” Id. at 1182. In making this determination, the 5 district court should consider “the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in 6 similar cases.” Id. 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 The Court finds that the proposed $50,000 settlement of Plaintiff A.B.’s claims is fair and 9 reasonable. In assessing the merits of the case, Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledges the risks given 10 Mr. Brown’s history and the deference given to government actors such as social workers. (Supp. 11 Brief at 5-6, Dkt. No. 75.) Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel explains that Plaintiffs, who love Mr. 12 Brown, would have struggled going through a trial that would challenge Mr. Brown’s character. 13 (Id.) 14 Further, the settlement amount appears reasonable. Plaintiffs’ counsel explains that 15 Plaintiff A.B. was thirteen at the time of the removal, has high emotional maturity, and had 16 previously stayed at the children’s home, such that the separation did not cause long-lasting 17 injuries. (Supp. Brief at 6.) Except for the one night at the children’s home, Plaintiff A.B. stayed 18 with a family friend who had helped raise her, and her separation from Plaintiff Bradley was 19 relatively short. (Id. at 4, 6.) Additionally, Plaintiffs obtained non-monetary relief, including new 20 training requirements for Sonoma County social workers working in Emergency Response, which 21 Plaintiffs value and hope will help avoid other unnecessary separations. (Id. at 6-7, 9.) 22 Finally, the settlement is comparable to recovery in similar cases. (See Olvera v. Cty. of 23 Sacramento, Case No. 10-cv-550-WBS, 2014 WL 4365144 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2014) ($600,000 24 total settlement, with $15,000 each to six minor plaintiffs and $66,969 to a seventh minor plaintiff 25 where minors were required to attend removal proceedings twelve times over two months and 26 were told to arrive with their belongings in the event they were removed); Mann v. Cty. of San 27 Diego, Case No. 11-cv-708-GPC, 2016 WL 9115549 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) ($750,000 total 1 physical examinations); Supp. Brief at 14-17 ($800,000 total settlement where children were 2 removed for almost a year and a half).) 3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 Considering the risks as to liability, the value of Plaintiff A.B.’s claim, and comparable 5 cases, the Court concludes that the settlement reflects a fair and reasonable compromise intended 6 || for Plaintiff A.B.’s benefit. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to approve the 7 settlement. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: September 14, 2021 10 Kew A. “had Unitéd States Magistrate Judge 12

15 16 & = 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28