Gabot v. Albertson's LLC

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 A.G., by and through her guardian ad litem, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01943-CDS-MDC Corene Gabot, 5 Order Granting Petition for Minor’s Plaintiffs Compromise and Motion to Seal 6 v. Petition

7 Albertson’s LLC,

8 Defendant [ECF Nos. 16, 17, 18]

9 10 Corene Gabot, as the natural mother, filed a petition for compromise of a claim on behalf 11 of her daughter, A.G. ECF Nos. 16 (unsealed); 17 (sealed).1 Plaintiffs also filed a motion to seal 12 the petition. Mot. to seal, ECF No. 18. Both the petition and the motion to seal it are unopposed. 13 Having reviewed the petition, I find the amount to be reasonable and the settlement to be in the 14 best interest of all parties. Thus, for the reasons set forth herein, I grant the plaintiffs’ petition 15 for compromise of minor’s claim. ECF No. 16. I also find there are compelling reasons for 16 maintaining the seal on ECF No. 18, namely the inclusion of medical information and personal 17 identifying information. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006) 18 (discussing compelling reasons standard). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion to seal is granted. 19 I. Background 20 On September 18, 2022, A.G., a minor, was with her mother at an Albertsons in 21 Henderson, Nevada. Gabot and A.G. used the restroom at Albertsons. As Gabot walked out of 22 the restroom with A.G. in her arms, Gabot slipped on water that was on the floor, causing Gabot 23 to fall with A.G. in her arms. Both Gabot and A.G. were injured in the fall. 24 25

26 1 For ease, the court only refers to the unsealed version of the petition (ECF No. 16) herein. Further, a copy of the sealed petition (ECF No. 17) is incorporated into this order by reference as if set forth fully herein. 1 II. Legal authority 2 It is well settled that courts have a special duty to safeguard the interests of litigants 3 who are minors in the context of settlements proposed in civil suits. Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 4 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). This special duty “requires a district court to ‘conduct its own 5 inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.’” Id. (quoting 6 Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). 7 Under Nevada law, a parent or guardian must seek the court’s approval to compromise a 8 disputed claim held by a minor by filing a verified petition in writing. Nevada Revised Statutes 9 (NRS) 41.200. No settlement is effective until it is approved by the court. Id. at (1) (“If an 10 unemancipated minor has a disputed claim . . ., either parent . . . has the right to compromise the 11 claim. Such a compromise is not effective until it is approved by the district court . . . upon a 12 verified petition in writing, regularly filed with the court.”); Haley v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 273 P.3d 13 855, 859 (Nev. 2012) (compromise of a minor’s claim “is not effective until approved by the 14 district court upon a verified petition in writing”). Citing Ninth Circuit and other federal circuit 15 court case law, the Supreme Court of Nevada concluded that “NRS 41.200 allows the district 16 court to assess the reasonableness of the petition to approve the compromise of a minor’s claim 17 and to ensure the approval of the proposed compromise is in the minor's best interest.” Id. at 860. 18 “This review necessarily entails the authority to review each portion of the proposed 19 compromise for reasonableness and to adjust the terms of the settlement accordingly, including 20 the fees and costs to be taken from the minor’s recovery.” Id. 21 As the Ninth Circuit has made clear, in cases involving the settlement of a minor’s federal 22 claims, the district court should “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net 23 amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the 24 facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases,” and should “evaluate 25 the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total 26 settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the 1 district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 1181–82 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078). 2 “So long as the net recovery to each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims 3 and average recovery in similar cases, the district court should approve the settlement as 4 proposed by the parties.” Id. 5 III. Analysis 6 Under the terms of the settlement, a total of $150,000 is to be distributed to Gabot and 7 A.G. ECF No. 16 at 2. The $150,000 is divided as follows: (1) $146,000 to Corene Gabot, and (2) 8 $4,000 to A.G. Id. The settlement is subject to a contingent attorney’s fee, payable to DiMarco, 9 Araujo and Montevideo, in the amount of 25% of the settlement resulting in a fee of $1,000.00.2 10 In determining whether to approve the settlement, the court must first consider the 11 outcome of similar cases to determine whether the sum to settle the minors’ claims is reasonable. 12 See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181. Although Gabot did not identify any similar actions to support the 13 approval of the minor’s compromise, I find the recovery is appropriate considering those 14 received by minors in other actions. The settlement is on par with amounts awarded to other 15 minors. See, e.g., M.W. v. Safeway, Inc., 2019 WL 4511927 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2019) (approving 16 $12,000 settlement for minor who suffered headaches after being struck in the head by a 17 shopping cart); Pineda vs. Target Corp., 18 Trials Digest 15th 18 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2011) ($4,600 18 settlement for minor who tripped and was injured when he hit his head on an unattended 19 shopping cart). Second, the requested attorney’s fees award is reasonable and appropriate in 20 contingency cases. In fact, in contingency fee cases, attorney’s fees for representing a minor 21 historically have been limited to 25% of the gross recovery. See J.K.E. by & through Kelly v. United 22 Parks & Resorts, Inc., 2025 WL 654723, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2025) (collecting cases). 23 Thus, based on a review of the petition, together with the exhibits attached thereto, I 24 find that the settlement is reasonable, and the attorney’s fees and costs are reasonable and fair. I 25

26 2 The contingency fee is calculated on the gross amount of the settlement before the deduction of fees and expenses. 1|| also find the method of disbursements to be fair, reasonable, and within the bounds of applicable law. See ECF No. 16 at 4-5 (setting forth the disbursement process). Accordingly, the petition for minor’s compromise is approved. Conclusion 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the proposed settlement for A.G.’s claim arising out of the September 18, 2022 incident at the Albertsons in Henderson, Nevada, is approved in the 7|| amount of $4,000.00. Therefore, the petition for approval of minor’s compromise [ECF No. 16/17] is APPROVED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the balance of the settlement proceeds, in the amount of $2,344.35, must be deposited into a blocked, interest-bearing account at Chase Bank until A.G. reaches the age of eighteen years. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by October 15, 2025, Gabot must file proof that the 13} funds were deposited in a blocked, interest-bearing trust account with Chase Bank for the 14] benefit of A.G. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to seal the unredacted version of the 16]| petition [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to maintain the 17] seal on ECF No. 17. “| 18 Dated: September 2, 2025 /, / 19 LZ 20 ath D Siva 51 17 d States District Judge / 22 23 24 25 26