Brittoni Estrella, et al. v. City of Modesto, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 11, 2026
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00921
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRITTONI ESTRELLA, et al. No. 1:22-cv-00921-DC-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS’ PETITIONS FOR 14 CITY OF MODESTO, et al. MINOR’S COMPROMISE 15 Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 72, 73, 74 ) 16

17 18 This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs Brittoni Estrella, A.C., J.C., and P.C.’s 19 petitions for minor’s compromise. (Doc. Nos. 72, 73, 74.) On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff Brittoni 20 Estrella passed away well into the litigation of the instant case and her death was not proximately 21 caused by the events giving rise to the instant-litigation. (Doc. No. 53.) Plaintiffs A.C., J.C., and 22 P.C. are co-successors-in-interest to Plaintiff Brittoni Estrella’s claims. (Doc. No. 72 at 3–4.) For 23 the reasons explained below, the court will order Plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing on 24 their petitions. 25 This court has a duty to protect the interests of minors participating in litigation before it. 26 Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983). This duty requires a district court 27 to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the 28 minor.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dacanay v. 1 Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). In examining the fairness of a settlement of a 2 minor’s claims, the Ninth Circuit has held that a district court should focus on “whether the net 3 amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the 4 facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 5 1181–82. Additionally, the Local Rules of this court require plaintiffs to advise the court of, 6 among other things, the manner in which the compromise was determined and whether a conflict 7 of interest may exist between the minors and their attorney. See Local Rules 202(b)–(c). 8 The total settlement of the case is in the amount of $5,000,000.00 including all costs and 9 attorney’s fees. (Doc. No. 73 at 3.) Of the total gross settlement, Plaintiffs A.C., J.C., and P.C.’s 10 will each receive $1,111,111.11 including costs and attorney’s fees for their claims. (Doc. Nos. 11 72 at 4; 73 at 4; 74 at 4.) Plaintiff Brittoni Estrella’s portion is one-third of the total settlement, or 12 $1,666,666.67 including costs and attorney’s fees. (Doc. No. 73 at 3.) As co-successors-in- 13 interest to Plaintiff Brittoni Estrella’s claims, Plaintiffs A.C., J.C., and P.C. will each receive one- 14 third of Plaintiff Brittoni Estrella’s settlement, approximately $555,555.56. (Doc. Nos. 72 at 3–4; 15 73 at 3–4; 74 at 3–4.) 16 In their petitions, Plaintiffs contend the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the 17 best interests of the minor Plaintiffs. (Doc. Nos. 72 at 7; 73 at 8; 74 at 7.) However, this statement 18 is insufficient to allow the court to discharge its independent duty to protect the interests of the 19 minor Plaintiffs. 20 Plaintiffs do not provide any information on how the compromise was reached between 21 the parties. Plaintiffs also provide no information or analysis on the risks and costs of bringing 22 this case through additional litigation or trial. Further, Plaintiffs fail to cite any example of 23 recoveries in similar cases “[f]rom which this [c]ourt can discern whether the recovery for each 24 minor is ‘fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, [each] minor’s specific claim, and 25 recovery in similar cases.’” Jones v. City of Sacramento, No. 20-cv-00900-DJC-KJN, 2024 WL 26 584506, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2024) (quoting Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182) (denying plaintiffs’ 27 stipulation for approval of the minors’ compromise without prejudice because, among other 28 reasons, plaintiffs failed to identify any similar cases). ] Additionally, the court requires supplemental briefing concerning the proposed attorney’s 2 || fees to be awarded in connection with the representation of the minor Plaintiffs. The petitions 3 | indicate Plaintiff “Brittoni Estrella’s contingency fee rate is 40% of her gross settlement in the 4 | amount of $666,666.67” and attorney’s fees for the minor Plaintiffs will be at 25% of each 5 | minor’s total gross recovery, $833,333.34 in total. (Doc. Nos. 72 at 4-5; 73 at 4-5; 74 at □□□□□ In 6 | effect, $1,500,000.01, 30% of the total settlement between Defendants and the minor Plaintiffs 7 | will be set aside for attorney’s fees. “Absent a showing of good cause, courts in the Eastern 8 | District of California generally consider twenty-five percent of the recovery as the benchmark for 9 | attorney’s fees in contingency cases for minors.” J.M. v. Tulare City Sch. Dist., No. 21-cv-01766- 10 | KJM-EPG, 2025 WL 436146, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan .27, 2025). 11 Accordingly, in light of the above identified issues the court will order Plaintiffs to 12 || provide supplemental briefing on their petitions for minor’s compromise. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons explained above: 15 1. Plaintiffs’ petitions for minor’s compromise for minor Plaintiffs A.C., J.C., and 16 P.C. (Doc. Nos. 72, 73, 74) remain pending; and 17 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order, Plaintiffs shall file a 18 supplemental brief addressing the aforementioned issues raised in this order. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. : 29 | Dated: _March 10, 2026 DUG Dena Coggins 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28