1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ESTATE OF SHERRANO STINGLEY, et al.,
13 Plaintiffs, No. 2:23-cv-00255-TLN-AC
14 15 v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Minor’s 20 Compromise. (ECF No. 80.) The motion is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the 21 motion is GRANTED. 22 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 23 This action arises from the officer-involved death of Sherrano Stingley. (ECF No. 80-1 at 24 8.) Mr. Stingley’s estate, mother, and children filed suit against Defendants County of 25 Sacramento, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Scott Jones, and deputies Freddy 26 Martinez, Rachell Villegas, Brittany Linde, and Brandon Swaim (collectively, “Defendants”). 27 (ECF No. 47 at 3–4.) Plaintiffs allege, on December 6, 2022, Sheriff’s deputies fatally injured 28 Mr. Stingley, rendering him comatose and brain dead, which ultimately led to his death ten days 1 later. (Id. at 5–16.) Plaintiffs’ claims include: (1) Excessive Force (U.S. Const. Amend. IV; 42 2 U.S.C. § 1983); (2) Denial of Medical Care (U.S. Const. Amend. IV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983); (3) § 3 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.); (4) Title II of the Americans with 4 Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.); (5) Unwarranted Interference with Familial 5 Association (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983); (6) Unwarranted Interference with 6 Familial Association (U.S. Const. Amend. I; 42 U.S.C. § 1983); (7) Excessive Force (Cal. Const. 7 Art. I § 13); (8) Denial of Medical Care (Cal. Const. Art. I § 13); (9) Tom Bane Civil Rights Act 8 (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1); (10) Assault / Battery; (11) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 9 (12) Negligence; and (13) Wrongful Death (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60). (Id. at 37–54.) 10 Plaintiff S.S. is Mr. Stingley’s biological son. (Id. at 3.) He was 9 years old when his 11 father died and he is currently 12 years old. (ECF No. 80-1 at 7.) S.S. asserts eleven claims in 12 this action as a survivor on behalf of the decedent and as an heir on behalf of himself.1 (Id. at 8; 13 see also ECF No. 1-2 (declaration filed pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.32).) On February 14 10, 2023, this Court appointed a guardian ad litem for S.S. in this action. (ECF No. 5.) 15 The parties reached an agreement to settle this action at a mediation before a retired 16 magistrate judge on January 7, 2026. (ECF No. 80-1 at 6.) In relevant part, the settlement 17 provides S.S. would receive a gross settlement of $187,500 and a net settlement of $135,884.67, 18 after attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id. at 6–7.) S.S.’s settlement funds will be used to purchase a 19 structured annuity to be paid as a lump sum when he turns 18 years old. (Id. at 8.) The estimated 20 annuity pay-out is $172,660.76. (ECF No. 80-2 at 5.) 21 S.S. has been represented for the duration of this litigation by the Law Office of Mark E. 22 Merin. (ECF No. 80-1 at 9.) Counsel seeks to recover attorneys’ fees and costs according to the 23 retainer agreement. (Id.) Specifically, counsel seeks a contingency fee of 25% of S.S.’s total 24 portion of the settlement ($46,875 in attorneys’ fees) and reimbursement of one-third of the costs 25 expended in litigation ($4,740.33).2 (ECF No. 80-1 at 9–10.) 26 1 S.S. asserts each of the claims listed above except claims under the California Constitution 27 (Excessive Force and Denial of Medical Care), which the Estate asserts. 28 2 Litigation costs are proposed to be divided equally among the three individual plaintiffs. 1 On January 29, 2026, the parties filed a notice of contingent settlement resolving all 2 claims in the action (ECF No. 79) and the instant unopposed motion for approval of minor’s 3 compromise (ECF No. 80). 4 II. STANDARD OF LAW 5 Courts have a special duty to safeguard the interests of minors in litigation. Robidoux v. 6 Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 7 (9th Cir. 1983). For settlements involving minors, a court must “conduct its own inquiry to 8 determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 9 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). The court’s review 10 should be limited to “whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement 11 is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in 12 similar cases.” Id. at 1182. This evaluation must be made independently for each minor “without 13 regard to the proportion of the total settlement value.” Id. 14 The process for approving minor’s settlements in the Eastern District is further governed 15 by Local Rule 202, which requires certain disclosures in a motion for approval of minor’s 16 settlement. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 202. 17 III. ANALYSIS 18 The Court finds the settlement distribution for S.S. under the terms of the agreement to be 19 fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the minor. S.S. will receive a net settlement of 20 $135,884.67, which is reasonable when compared to other recoveries by minors in similar cases 21 concerning an officer-involved death of a parent. See, e.g., Estate of Alvarado v. Tackett, No. 13- 22 CV-1202, 2019 WL 4573714, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019) ($55,000); A.G.A. v. County of 23 Riverside, No. 19-CV-00077, 2019 WL 2871160, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2019) ($18,653.44); 24 Napier v. San Diego Cnty., No. 3:15-CV-00581, 2017 WL 5759803, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 25 2017) ($41,125); Armstrong v. Dossey, No. 1:11-CV-01632-SKO, 2013 WL 4676541, at *5 (E.D. 26 Cal. Aug. 30, 2013) ($22,500); Doe ex rel. Scott v. Gill, No. C 11-4759 CW, 2012 WL 1939612, 27 at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012) ($7,188.85); Swayzer v. City of San Jose, No. 10-CV-03119, 2011 28 WL 3471217, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011) ($2,054.17). Additionally, the settlement is fair and 1 reasonable in light of the current posture of the case and the risks and costs of continued 2 litigation. (See ECF No. 80-1 at 9 (noting liability is contested and S.S.’s potential recovery 3 could be limited because decedent did not financially support him).) 4 Moreover, the proposed deduction of attorneys’ fees and costs from S.S.’s recovery are 5 fair and reasonable. Attorneys’ fees at a contingency rate of 25% for minors is generally accepted 6 and typical in California. See McCue v. S. Fork Union Sch. Dist., No. 1:10-CV-00233, 2012 WL 7 2995666, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 23, 2012) (“It has been the practice in the Eastern District of 8 California to consider 25% of the recovery as the benchmark for attorney fees in contingency 9 cases for minors, subject to a showing of good cause to exceed that rate.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ESTATE OF SHERRANO STINGLEY, et al.,
13 Plaintiffs, No. 2:23-cv-00255-TLN-AC
14 15 v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Minor’s 20 Compromise. (ECF No. 80.) The motion is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the 21 motion is GRANTED. 22 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 23 This action arises from the officer-involved death of Sherrano Stingley. (ECF No. 80-1 at 24 8.) Mr. Stingley’s estate, mother, and children filed suit against Defendants County of 25 Sacramento, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Scott Jones, and deputies Freddy 26 Martinez, Rachell Villegas, Brittany Linde, and Brandon Swaim (collectively, “Defendants”). 27 (ECF No. 47 at 3–4.) Plaintiffs allege, on December 6, 2022, Sheriff’s deputies fatally injured 28 Mr. Stingley, rendering him comatose and brain dead, which ultimately led to his death ten days 1 later. (Id. at 5–16.) Plaintiffs’ claims include: (1) Excessive Force (U.S. Const. Amend. IV; 42 2 U.S.C. § 1983); (2) Denial of Medical Care (U.S. Const. Amend. IV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983); (3) § 3 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.); (4) Title II of the Americans with 4 Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.); (5) Unwarranted Interference with Familial 5 Association (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983); (6) Unwarranted Interference with 6 Familial Association (U.S. Const. Amend. I; 42 U.S.C. § 1983); (7) Excessive Force (Cal. Const. 7 Art. I § 13); (8) Denial of Medical Care (Cal. Const. Art. I § 13); (9) Tom Bane Civil Rights Act 8 (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1); (10) Assault / Battery; (11) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 9 (12) Negligence; and (13) Wrongful Death (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60). (Id. at 37–54.) 10 Plaintiff S.S. is Mr. Stingley’s biological son. (Id. at 3.) He was 9 years old when his 11 father died and he is currently 12 years old. (ECF No. 80-1 at 7.) S.S. asserts eleven claims in 12 this action as a survivor on behalf of the decedent and as an heir on behalf of himself.1 (Id. at 8; 13 see also ECF No. 1-2 (declaration filed pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.32).) On February 14 10, 2023, this Court appointed a guardian ad litem for S.S. in this action. (ECF No. 5.) 15 The parties reached an agreement to settle this action at a mediation before a retired 16 magistrate judge on January 7, 2026. (ECF No. 80-1 at 6.) In relevant part, the settlement 17 provides S.S. would receive a gross settlement of $187,500 and a net settlement of $135,884.67, 18 after attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id. at 6–7.) S.S.’s settlement funds will be used to purchase a 19 structured annuity to be paid as a lump sum when he turns 18 years old. (Id. at 8.) The estimated 20 annuity pay-out is $172,660.76. (ECF No. 80-2 at 5.) 21 S.S. has been represented for the duration of this litigation by the Law Office of Mark E. 22 Merin. (ECF No. 80-1 at 9.) Counsel seeks to recover attorneys’ fees and costs according to the 23 retainer agreement. (Id.) Specifically, counsel seeks a contingency fee of 25% of S.S.’s total 24 portion of the settlement ($46,875 in attorneys’ fees) and reimbursement of one-third of the costs 25 expended in litigation ($4,740.33).2 (ECF No. 80-1 at 9–10.) 26 1 S.S. asserts each of the claims listed above except claims under the California Constitution 27 (Excessive Force and Denial of Medical Care), which the Estate asserts. 28 2 Litigation costs are proposed to be divided equally among the three individual plaintiffs. 1 On January 29, 2026, the parties filed a notice of contingent settlement resolving all 2 claims in the action (ECF No. 79) and the instant unopposed motion for approval of minor’s 3 compromise (ECF No. 80). 4 II. STANDARD OF LAW 5 Courts have a special duty to safeguard the interests of minors in litigation. Robidoux v. 6 Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 7 (9th Cir. 1983). For settlements involving minors, a court must “conduct its own inquiry to 8 determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 9 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). The court’s review 10 should be limited to “whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement 11 is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in 12 similar cases.” Id. at 1182. This evaluation must be made independently for each minor “without 13 regard to the proportion of the total settlement value.” Id. 14 The process for approving minor’s settlements in the Eastern District is further governed 15 by Local Rule 202, which requires certain disclosures in a motion for approval of minor’s 16 settlement. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 202. 17 III. ANALYSIS 18 The Court finds the settlement distribution for S.S. under the terms of the agreement to be 19 fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the minor. S.S. will receive a net settlement of 20 $135,884.67, which is reasonable when compared to other recoveries by minors in similar cases 21 concerning an officer-involved death of a parent. See, e.g., Estate of Alvarado v. Tackett, No. 13- 22 CV-1202, 2019 WL 4573714, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019) ($55,000); A.G.A. v. County of 23 Riverside, No. 19-CV-00077, 2019 WL 2871160, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2019) ($18,653.44); 24 Napier v. San Diego Cnty., No. 3:15-CV-00581, 2017 WL 5759803, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 25 2017) ($41,125); Armstrong v. Dossey, No. 1:11-CV-01632-SKO, 2013 WL 4676541, at *5 (E.D. 26 Cal. Aug. 30, 2013) ($22,500); Doe ex rel. Scott v. Gill, No. C 11-4759 CW, 2012 WL 1939612, 27 at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012) ($7,188.85); Swayzer v. City of San Jose, No. 10-CV-03119, 2011 28 WL 3471217, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011) ($2,054.17). Additionally, the settlement is fair and 1 reasonable in light of the current posture of the case and the risks and costs of continued 2 litigation. (See ECF No. 80-1 at 9 (noting liability is contested and S.S.’s potential recovery 3 could be limited because decedent did not financially support him).) 4 Moreover, the proposed deduction of attorneys’ fees and costs from S.S.’s recovery are 5 fair and reasonable. Attorneys’ fees at a contingency rate of 25% for minors is generally accepted 6 and typical in California. See McCue v. S. Fork Union Sch. Dist., No. 1:10-CV-00233, 2012 WL 7 2995666, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 23, 2012) (“It has been the practice in the Eastern District of 8 California to consider 25% of the recovery as the benchmark for attorney fees in contingency 9 cases for minors, subject to a showing of good cause to exceed that rate.”). Plaintiffs' counsel 10 seeks the generally accepted rate. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiffs’ counsel’s bill of costs 11 (ECF No. 80-2 at 9) and finds the costs over three years of litigation and S.S.’s proposed share of 12 the costs (33%) to be fair and reasonable (ECF No. 80-1 at 9–10). 13 Finally, the method of disbursement is in S.S.’s best interest. Annuities are permissible 14 under California law and routinely approved for disbursement of minors’ settlement funds. 15 See Cal. Prob. Code § 3602(c)(1). Here, the net settlement proceeds will be used to purchase a 16 structured annuity that will be paid to S.S. when he reaches the age of majority, at an estimated 17 payout of $172,660.76 after annuitization. (ECF No. 80-1 at 8). 18 In sum, S.S.’s net settlement amount and the method of distribution are fair and 19 reasonable and in S.S.’s best interests considering the asserted claims and comparable cases. 20 IV. CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Minor’s Compromise (ECF 22 No. 80) is GRANTED. Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, Defendants 23 shall pay $187,500 to resolve S.S.’s claims with payments made as follows: 24 1. $135,884.67 payable to MetLife Assignment Company, Inc. to fund S.S.’s annuity; and 25 2. $51,615.33 payable to the Law Office of Mark E. Merin for S.S.’s attorneys’ fees and costs. 26 Within 21 days of this Order, the parties shall file dispositional documents in accordance 27 with Local Rule 160. 28 // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7, 2 | Date: March 10, 2026 3 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28