L.C.C v. The United States of America

District Court, S.D. California·Decided November 1, 2022·No. 3:20-cv-01489·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 L.C.C., a minor, by and through his Case No.: 20cv1489-KSC Guardians Ad Litem, LINDSAY 12 CALIHAN and CHRISTOPHER ORDER APPROVING MINOR’S 13 CALIHAN, COMPROMISE AND MINOR’S TRUST 14 Plaintiffs,

15 v. [Doc. Nos. 35, 36.] 16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; and SCRIPPS MERCY HOSPITAL, a 17 business entity, 18 Defendants. 19

21 22 Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Petition for Approval of a Minor’s 23 Compromise and for Approval of the Minor’s Trust (“Petition”). [Doc. No. 35.] The 24 Petition is supported by counsel’s Declaration and eleven exhibits, including copies of 25 the Settlement Agreements with the remaining defendants (“the proposed Settlement”) 26 and the Settlement Preservation Trust instrument being created for the benefit of the 27 minor (“the proposed Trust”). [Doc. No. 35, at pp. 14-15; Doc. Nos. 35-3 to 34-6 28 (Exhibit Nos. 3-6).] Plaintiffs also filed an Addendum to their Ex Parte Petition to 1 advise the Court of the final amount of a Medi-Cal lien that impacts the allocation of the 2 settlement funds. [Doc. No. 36.] 3 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 17.1(a), the petitioners seek the Court’s approval of 4 the proposed Settlement and the compromise of the minor’s claims against the two 5 remaining defendants in this action. Petitioner also seeks to consolidate approval of the 6 trust instrument as permitted under Local Rule 17.1(b)(3). On July 7, 2022, the parties 7 consented to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all remaining proceedings, including 8 the entry of judgment. [Doc. No. 41.] A final hearing on the Petition was held on 9 October 14, 2022. [Doc. No. 44]. Having reviewed the Petition and the supporting 10 documents, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Petition must be 12 Summary of Plaintiffs’ Claims 13 The minor plaintiff, L.C.C., was born at Scripps Mercy Hospital in San Diego, 14 California, on September 24, 2017. Plaintiffs allege that a breach of the standard of care 15 and a delay in performing a Caesarean section caused L.C.C. to suffer a prolonged lack of 16 oxygen to his brain which resulted in neurological injuries. [Doc. No. 1, at pp. 4-6; Doc. 17 No. 35, at p. 3.] L.C.C. was diagnosed with cerebral palsy and left upper and lower 18 extremity hypo- and hyper-tonia. [Doc. No. 35, at p. 3.] 19 Procedural History 20 On July 31, 2020, plaintiff L.C.C., through his parents as his guardians ad litem, 21 filed suit for medical negligence against the United States, Scripps Health, and Scripps 22 Mercy Hospital. [Doc. No. 1.] According to the Complaint, the Court’s jurisdiction is 23 based on 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. (i.e., the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”)) and 28 24 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), because the United States is a defendant. [Doc. No. 1, at p. 3.] With 25 respect to tort claims, the FTCA provides that the United States “shall be liable . . . in the 26 same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances. . . .” 27 28 U.S.C. § 2674. The FTCA also includes a specific choice of law provision stating that 28 liability is determined “in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission 1 occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). However, the Court notes that “issues not affecting the 2 government’s substantive liability are determined solely by federal law; at most, state law 3 provides only an interpretive guide to the outcome of these issues.” Jackson v. U.S., 881 4 F.2d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1989). 5 Fact discovery in the case commenced on or about December 22, 2020 [Doc. No. 6 13] and was essentially complete as of October 8, 2021. [Doc. Nos. 28, p. 2.] Expert 7 discovery commenced thereafter and was scheduled to be completed as of April 27, 2022. 8 [Doc. No. 28, at p. 3.] However, on January 5, 2022, the parties filed a Notice of 9 Settlement. [Doc. No. 32.] During the discovery period, plaintiff L.C.C. was evaluated by 10 “multiple experts” retained by the defendants. [Doc. No. 35, at p. 4.] 11 Discussion 12 A. The Proposed Settlement. 13 “It has long been established that the court in which a minor's claims are being 14 litigated has a duty to protect the minor’s interests.” Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 15 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983). Where the parties settle an action involving a minor litigant, 16 the Court must “‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the 17 best interest of the minor.’” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) 18 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). The Court must 19 conduct this inquiry “even if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the 20 minor’s parent or guardian ad litem.” Salmeron, 724 F.2d at 1363. 21 In this regard, Civil Local Rule 17.1(a) states as follows: “No action by or on behalf 22 of a minor or incompetent, or in which a minor or incompetent has an interest, will be 23 settled, compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated without court 24 order or judgment. All settlements and compromises must be reviewed by a magistrate 25 judge before any order of approval will issue….]” CivLR 17.1(a). 26 In cases such as this, which involve “the settlement of a minor’s federal claims,” the 27 Ninth Circuit in Robidoux, 638 F.3d 1177, instructed “district courts [to] limit review to 28 the question whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is 1 fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery 2 in similar cases.” Id. at 1181–1182 n.2. Courts should also “evaluate the fairness of each 3 minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value 4 designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court 5 has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 1182. “So long as the net recovery to each minor 6 plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery in similar cases, 7 the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the parties.” Id. 8 Here, the Petition is supported by copies of two written Settlement Agreements, one 9 between the plaintiffs and defendant United States and the other between plaintiffs and 10 defendant Scripps Health d/b/a Scripps Mercy Hospital San Diego. [Doc. Nos. 35-3 and 11 35-4 (Exhibits 3 and 4).] The proposed Settlement was privately negotiated and was not 12 reached during or as the result of a settlement conference with the Court. Under the 13 proposed Settlement, defendants have collectively agreed to pay a total of $1,000,000, with 14 the United States paying $600,000 and Scripps paying the remaining $400,000. Plaintiffs 15 have already been paid by defendants and the funds are being held in trust by plaintiffs’ 16 counsel until the proposed Settlement is approved by the Court. No further approvals of 17 the proposed Settlement are required by the Torts Branch of the United States or any other 18 entity. [Doc. No. 35, at pp. 3-4.] 19 As set forth in the Petition, plaintiffs seek the Court’s approval of the following 20 allocation of the proposed $1,000,000 Settlement amount: First, the Petition allocates an 21 amount not to exceed $65,000 to an unresolved Medi-Cal lien. [Doc. No. 36, at p.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

L.C.C v. The United States of America, (S.D. Cal. 2022).

L.C.C v. The United States of America (L.C.C v. The United States of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Robidoux v. Rosengren
638 F.3d 1177 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Royal Business Funds Corporation
724 F.2d 12 (Second Circuit, 1983)
Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc.
238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 737 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2018)