D.J.M.J. v. City of Lincoln

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01167
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 D.J.M.J., as Successor-in-Interest to No. 2:22-cv-01167-DJC-SCR Decedent DAVID JAMES 11 MANDEVILLE, SR., and in his individual capacity, by and through his 12 Guardian Ad Litem ANGELA ORDER APPROVING MINORS’ MANDEVILLE, et al., COMPROMISES 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v.

15 CITY OF LINCOLN, a municipal corporation, et al., 16 Defendants. 17

19 Plaintiffs bring the present action against Defendants City of Lincoln and City of

20 Rocklin alleging several causes of action stemming from the wrongful death of

21 Decedent David James Mandeville, Sr. Among the Plaintiffs are several of Decedent’s

22 minor children, in cluding Plaintiff D.A.M., by and through his Guardian Ad Litem 23 Angela Mandeville, and Plaintiff D.J.M.J., by and through his Guardian Ad Litem 24 Angela Mandeville. Plaintiffs D.A.M. and D.J.M.J. have each filed motions to approve 25 settlements with Defendants on their behalf. 26 For the reasons stated below, the Court finds the settlements are fair and 27 reasonable, and will therefore grant Plaintiffs D.A.M. and D.J.M.J.’s motions to 28 approve the settlements. 1 BACKGROUND

2 On May 30, 2021, Decedent was at his grandmother’s house. (Second Am.

3 Compl. (ECF No. 30) ¶ 24.) Decedent began acting anxious and paranoid and called

4 911 to inform the operator he had killed his mother, which was untrue. (Id. ¶ 25.)

5 Lincoln Police Department (“LPD”) officers arrived at the house in response to the 911

6 call. (Id. ¶ 26.) The LPD officers contacted the Rocklin Police Department (“RPD”) and

7 asked them to bring a canine officer to the scene. (Id. ¶ 29.) RPD officers arrived with

8 a canine officer. (Id. ¶¶ 29–30.) Once the officers arrived, Decedent walked outside

9 the house and began removing his clothing as he approached the officers. (Id. ¶¶ 28,

10 30.) Decedent removed all his clothing except for his boxer shorts, raised his hands in

11 the air, and yelled “I don’t have any weapons!” (Id. ¶ 31.) The officers asked Decedent

12 to come across the street. (Id. ¶ 32.) Decedent instead ran away from the officers. (Id.

13 ¶ 33.) The canine deputy released the canine officer, which bit Decedent multiple

14 times, puncturing his stomach and sides. (Id. ¶¶ 34–35.) The canine officer did not

15 stop biting Decedent despite repeated commands from the canine deputy to do so.

16 (Id. ¶ 36.) The bite wounds were so severe that Decedent was hospitalized, and one

17 of the bites caused a hole in Decedent’s intestines. (Id. ¶ 39.) That puncture caused

18 Decedent to develop sepsis, and he died on June 6, 2021. (Id. ¶ 39.)

19 Plaintiffs, who are Decedent’s three children and his wife, filed this action on

20 July 5, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) The Parties settled the matter pursuant to a conference

21 with a magistrate judge on May 7, 2024. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiffs D.A.M. and D.J.M.J.

22 subsequently moved for approval of the settlement agreements on September 9,

23 2024. (D.A.M. Mot. (ECF No. 63); D.J.M.J. Mot. (ECF No. 64.).) Their motions are

24 unopposed. (ECF Nos. 65–66.)

25 The Court ordered the motions submitted without appearance and without oral 26 argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and subsequently ordered supplemental 27 briefing from Plaintiffs demonstrating the appropriateness of the settlement amount in 28 light of the average recovery in similar cases. (ECF Nos. 67–68.) Plaintiffs filed the 1 requested supplemental briefing. (D.A.M. Am. Mot. (ECF No. 69); D.J.M.J. Am. Mot.

2 (ECF No. 70).) The matter is fully briefed.

3 LEGAL STANDARD

4 No claim by or against a minor or incompetent person may be settled or

5 compromised absent an order by the Court approving the settlement or compromise.

6 E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b). The Local Rules require that the motion for approval of a

7 proposed minor’s compromise disclose, among other things: (1) the age and sex of

8 the minor, (2) the nature of the causes of action to be settled or compromised, (3) the

9 facts and circumstances out of which the causes of action arose, including the time,

10 place, and persons involved, (4) the manner in which the compromise amount or

11 other consideration was determined, including such additional information as may be

12 required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement or

13 compromise amount, and (5) if a personal injury claim, the nature and extent of the

14 injury with sufficient particularity to inform the Court whether the injury is temporary or

15 permanent. See id.

16 Further, the Ninth Circuit held in Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181

17 (9th Cir. 2011) that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) imposes a “special duty” on

18 district courts approving a minor’s compromise. “[T]his special duty requires a district

19 court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best

20 interests of the minor.’” Id. (citations omitted). However, this “special duty” has a

21 limited scope of review, asking only “whether the net recovery of each minor plaintiff

22 is fair and reasonable, without regard to the amount received by adult co-plaintiffs

23 and what they have agreed to pay plaintiffs’ counsel.” Id. at 1182. “If the net recovery

24 of each minor plaintiff under the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, the

25 district court should approve the settlement as presented . . . .” Id. In making this 26 determination, “courts typically consider such information as the relative worth of the 27 settlement amount, the circumstances of the settlement, counsel’s explanation of their 28 views and experiences in litigating these types of actions, and other similar 1 compromises that have been approved by courts.” Rivett v. United States, No. 2:21-

2 CV-00717-DAD-AC, 2023 WL 4238909, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2023) (collecting

3 cases where the procedural posture was considered, the fact that the settlement

4 occurred at a court-supervised settlement conference was considered, and other

5 compromises were considered).

6 Plaintiffs bring a variety of state and federal law claims against Defendants.

7 Although the Ninth Circuit expressly limited its holding to “cases involving the

8 settlement of a minor’s federal claims[,]” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1179 n.2, where, as

9 here, a court is exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, courts will

10 apply the Robidoux standard to all of the claims, see A.G.A. v. County of Riverside, No.

11 19-cv-00077-VAP-SPx, 2019 WL 2871160, at *3 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2019)

12 (collecting cases).

13 PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS

14 The proposed settlements would resolve all claims brought by Plaintiffs D.A.M.

15 and D.J.M.J., as well as by Plaintiffs D.J.M., by and through his Guardian Ad Litem

16 Clairessa Fraizer, and Angela Mandeville, against Defendants City of Rocklin and City

17 of Lincoln. (D.A.M. Mot., Ex. A (“Rocklin Settlement Agreement”) (ECF No. 63); D.A.M.

18 Mot., Ex. B (“Lincoln Settlement Agreement”) (ECF No. 63).) Under the terms of the

19 settlements, the Defendants agree to pay a total settlement amount of $210,000, with

20 the City of Rocklin paying $199,500.00, and the City of Lincoln paying $10,500.

21 (D.A.M. Mot. at 3; D.J.M.J. Mot. at 3.) The settlements will be divided equally among

22 the Plaintiffs, with Plaintiffs D.A.M. and D.J.M.J. each receiving a gross settlement

23 amount of $52,500. (D.A.M. Mot. at 4; D.J.M.J. Mot. at 4.) Plaintiffs’ counsel requests

24 25% of the gross settlement, or $13,125, in attorney’s fees, as well as $181.90 in costs,

25 from each Plaintiff. (Id.) After attorney’s fees and costs are deducted, Plaintiffs D.A.M. 26 and D.J.M.J. will each receive $39,193.10. (D.A.M. Mot. at 5; D.J.M.J. Mot. at 5.) 27 Plaintiffs’ funds will be placed into tax-free structured settlement annuity policy from 28 Pacific Life Insurance Company, from which they will receive four lump sum payments 1 over a ten-year period once they turn 18. (Id.) Plaintiffs D.A.M. and D.J.M.J. have

2 agreed to release all claims against Defendants and state they will request dismissal of

3 their claims with prejudice against the Defendants upon fulfillment of the settlement

4 terms. (Rocklin Settlement Agreement at 1–2; Lincoln Settlement Agreement at 1.)

5 DISCUSSION

6 The Court will approve the proposed settlements as to Plaintiffs D.A.M. and

7 D.J.M.J. First, Plaintiffs’ motions provide each of the disclosures required by Local

8 Rule 202(b)(2). The motions indicate the age and sex of each minor, the nature of the

9 causes of action settled, the facts and circumstances surrounding the causes of action,

10 and information about the manner in which the compromise amount was reached.

11 (D.A.M. Mot. at 2–4; D.J.M.J. Mot. at 2–4.)

12 In addition, although Plaintiffs previously failed to provide any comparison

13 cases, Plaintiffs have now provided several cases involving settlements and jury

14 awards in cases involving excessive use of police canines and wrongful death caused

15 by law enforcement. (See D.A.M. Am. Mot. at 4–6; D.J.M.J. Am. Mot. at 4–6.) The facts

16 of the cases identified by Plaintiffs differ from the case at hand, but Plaintiffs state they

17 were unable to locate any verdicts or settlements involving the same or similar facts.

18 This Court has similarly been unable to locate cases which match the precise factual

19 context of this action. That said, the Court has generally reviewed wrongful death

20 actions brought on behalf of minors related to the loss of a parent and finds that the

21 net recovery to each minor Plaintiff here is consistent with the average recovery in

22 those cases. See, e.g., E.S. by and through Gonzalez v. City of Visalia, No. 1:13-CV-

23 01697-LJO-BAM, 2015 WL 6956837 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015) (approving minor’s

24 compromise for net payment of $130,444.83 in action involving the shooting and

25 killing of minor’s father); Armstrong v. Dossey, No. 1:11-CV-01632-SKO, 2013 WL 26 4676541 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2013) (finding fair and reasonable settlement of minors’ 27 section 1983 claims for their father’s death for $22,500 and $11,000 respectively 28 between the minors); E.R. v. County of Stanislaus, No. 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO, 2016 1 WL 3354334 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2016) (approving net settlement of $19,000 for the

2 wrongful death of a parent while in custody); Doe ex rel. Scott v. Gill, Nos. C 11-4759

3 CW, C 11-5009 CW, C 11-5083 CW, 2012 WL 1939612 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012)

4 (approving minor’s compromise in the net amount of $7,188.85 in a wrongful death

5 action involving the shooting and killing of the minor’s mother by police officers);

6 Swayzer v. City of San Jose, No. C10-03119 HRL, 2011 WL 3471217 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5,

7 2011) (finding a minor’s compromise for net amount of $2,054.17 was appropriate in

8 action involving alleged wrongful death of minor’s father during his arrest); cf. Cotton

9 ex rel. McClure v. City of Eureka, No. C 08-4386 SBA, 2012 WL 6052519 (N.D. Cal.

10 Dec. 5, 2012) (approving minor’s compromise for wrongful death of minor’s father by

11 police officers in the net amount of $2,646,765.90; settlement occurred during

12 pendency of appeal, which followed jury verdict in the amount of $4,000,000 in

13 compensatory damages awarded to minor plaintiff).

14 Further, Plaintiffs argue there are multiple reasons why a net recovery of

15 $39,193.10 for each Plaintiff is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. First,

16 Plaintiffs explain there is a question of fact as to whether or not the canine officer’s bite

17 was the actual cause of death, as the medical records indicate decedent died as a

18 result of sepsis, and it is debatable whether or not the bite was the cause of the sepsis

19 or if it was due to another cause. (D.A.M. Am. Mot. at 6; D.J.M.J. Am. Mot. at 6.) In

20 addition, Plaintiffs explain there is a question of fact as to whether use of the canine

21 officer was warranted given that decedent was running away from the officers when

22 the canine officer was released. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiffs state they wish to accept the

23 $39,193.10 net recovery to avoid any further emotional distress and psychological

24 harm further litigation would cause. (Id.) Based on the Court’s review of Plaintiffs

25 cases, as well an independent review of similar cases and the facts of this case, the 26 Court finds the settlement amounts are fair and reasonable.1 27 1 In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ counsel will be awarded 25% of each Plaintiff’s gross 28 settlement, or $13,1250 per Plaintiff, based on their retainer agreement. (D.A.M. Mot. at 4; D.J.M.J. 1 Finally, the proposed method of disbursing the settlement also appears to be

2 fair and reasonable. Local Rule 202(e) requires money or property recovered on

3 behalf of a minor to be “(1) disbursed to the representative pursuant to state law upon

4 a showing that the representative is duly qualified under state law, (2) disbursed

5 otherwise pursuant to state law, or (3) disbursed pursuant to such other order as the

6 Court deems proper for the protection of the minor or incompetent person.” E.D. Cal.

7 L.R. 202(e). Under the settlements, each minor Plaintiff’s net recovery will be placed

8 into a tax-free structured settlement annuity policy from which that Plaintiff will receive

9 periodic payments once they turn 18. (D.A.M. Mot. at 5; D.J.M.J. Mot. at 5.) This

10 appears to comply with the requirements of California law for settlements

11 involving minor parties.2 As such, the method of disbursement of funds satisfies Local

12 Rule 202(e).

13 Based upon the information provided in the motions and supporting

14 documents and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, as

15 well as the results achieved in comparable cases in the Ninth Circuit, the Court finds

16 the proposed settlements are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of Plaintiffs

17 D.A.M. and D.J.M.J.

18 CONCLUSION

19 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

20 1. Plaintiff D.A.M.’s Motion for Approval of Settlement (ECF No. 63) and

21 Plaintiff D.J.M.J.’s Motion for Approval of Settlement (ECF No. 64) are

22 GRANTED;

23 Mot. at 4.) Counsel also seeks $181.90 in costs per Plaintiff. (Id.) Under Robidoux, this Court’s focus is 24 limited to “whether the net recovery of each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable, without regard to the amount received by adu lt co-plaintiffs and what they have agreed to pay plaintiff's counsel.” 638 F.3d 25 at 1182.

26 2 California law requires a structured settlement annuity or some similar locked-in, fixed-term investment vehicle for settlements for minors exceeding $5,000. See Cal. Prob. Code § 3401(c)(2); Cal. 27 Prob. Code § 3611; Williams v. County of Monterey, No. 19-CV-01811-BLF, 2020 WL 7342737, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2020) (noting that “district courts within the Ninth Circuit commonly order that such 28 funds be deposited into a blocked account for the minor’s benefit.” (collecting cases)). 1 2. The compromise and settlement of the claims of minor Plaintiffs D.A.M. and 2 D.J.M.J., with the minors receiving gross settlement proceeds of $52,500 3 each, is HEREBY APPROVED as fair and reasonable and in the best interests 4 of the minor Plaintiffs; 5 3. Payment of attorney’s fees and costs shall be paid by one check or draft, 6 payable to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorney, in the total amount of 7 $13,306.90 per minor Plaintiff; 8 4. The net settlement funds of $39,193.10 per minor Plaintiff shall be 9 disbursed as specified in Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ proposed orders (see ECF 10 Nos. 63-1, 64-1); 11 5. Plaintiffs are authorized to dismiss this action with prejudice as to 12 Defendants City of Rocklin and City of Lincoln upon payment of all 13 settlement funds by said Defendants; and 14 6. Plaintiffs are authorized and directed to execute any further documents 15 reasonably necessary to carry out the terms of the settlements. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 | Dated: _ January 17, 2025 “Daal A CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 | DJca - DJMJ22CV1167.MinorsCompromise 24 25 26 27 28