3 4
5 6
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 MARK MANN; MELISSA MANN; ) Case No. 11CV0708 GPC (BGS)
12 N.G.P.M., a minor; M.N.A.M. a minor; ) M.C.G.M. a minor; and N.E.H.M. a ) ORDER FOR MINORS’ INTEREST IN 13 minor by and through their Guardian ) SETTLEMENT OF ACTION
14 Ad Litem, BRUCE PAUL ) [ECF No. 370] ) 15 Plaintiffs, )
16 v. ) ) Judge : Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 17 Magistrate: Hon. Bernard G. Skomal COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al, ) 18 ) 19 Defendants. ) ) 20 ) 21 ) ) 22 On January 28, 2020, the parties filed a Petition for Approval of Minor’s 23 Interest in Settlement of Action (the “Petition”). ECF No. 370. On February 10, 24 2020, Defendant County of San Diego filed a response indicating their non- 25 opposition to the Petition. ECF No. 373. On February 25, 2020, the magistrate 26 filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) approving the settlement as to the 27 28 1 payments to each of the four minor children. ECF No. 374. On February 25, 2020, 2 Defendant filed a response to the R&R indicating that it had no objections. 3 BACKGROUND 4 This lawsuit arises from allegations that Defendants San Diego County and 5 County social workers wrongfully removed the minor Plaintiffs from the care, 6 custody, and control of their parents. ECF No. 370 at 2. The Petitioner, as guardian 7 ad litem on behalf of the minor Plaintiffs, alleged that the minor Plaintiffs were 8 taken to a County shelter care facility and subjected to medical examinations 9 without the presence, notice, or consent of their parents. Id. Petitioner does not 10 represent that any minor required medical treatment as a result, nor did they seek 11 special damages for psychological treatment. Id. at 2-3. 12 On September 26, 2016, the Court approves the parties’ settlement as to some 13 claims. ECF No. 309. On Decembr 12, 2019, the parties reached a settlement on 14 the remaining claims. ECF No. 370 at 5. 15 DISCUSSION 16 District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 17(c), “to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux 18 v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). In the context of proposed 19 settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district 20 court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the 21 best interests of the minor.” Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978); see also Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) 22 (holding that “a court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise 23 or settlement of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are 24 protected, even if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the 25 minor’s parent or guardian ad litem”). 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 1 A. Gross Settlement 2 In considering the fairness of a minor’s state law settlement, “federal courts 3 generally require that claims by minors . . . be settled in accordance with applicable 4 state law.” See O'Connell & Stevenson, California Practice Guide: Federal Civil 5 Procedure Before Trial ¶ 15:138 (Cal. & 9th Cir. Eds. 2017). In addition, the Ninth 6 Circuit’s decision in Robidoux set forth guidelines for determining the 7 reasonableness of a minor’s settlement of federal claims. 638 F.3d at 1181-82. The 8 Robidoux court, which limited its holding to federal law settlements, held that 9 district courts are to “limit the scope of their review” of settlements involving minor 10 plaintiffs “to the question of whether the net amount distributed to each minor 11 plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, [1] in light of the facts of the case, 12 [2] the minor’s specific claim, and [3] recovery in similar cases.” 638 F.3d at 1179, 13 1181-82 (brackets added). 14 Plaintiffs’ unopposed Petition provides that the four minor children will each 15 receive $50,000, made payable to Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc., to fund 16 future periodic payments. ECF No. 37 at 10. Having considered the Petition, the 17 R&R, and all supporting papers and evidence and good cause appearing, the Court 18 APPROVES and GRANTS the Petition (ECF No. 370) with respect to the payments 19 to each minor plaintiff in accordance with the following: 20 1. N.G.P.M. - $65,946.28 21 2. M.N.A.M. - $71,859.21 3. M.C.G.M. - $71,859.21 22 4. N.E.H.M. - $71,859.21 23 ECF No. 370 at 8-9. 24 B. Attorney’s Fees 25 In California, courts are required to approve the attorneys' fees to be paid for 26 representation of a minor. See CAL. PROB. CODE § 2601. Attorney’s fees and 27 costs are typically controlled by statute, local rule, or local custom. Generally, fees 28 1 in minors' cases historically have been limited to twenty-five percent (25%) of the 2 gross recovery. Napier by & through Quiroz v. San Diego Cty., No. 3:15-cv- 3 00581-CAB-KSC, 2017 WL 5759803, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017). To 4 determine whether the fee is reasonable, courts consider a myriad of factors 5 including the amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services performed; 6 the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and skills required; the amount 7 involved and the results obtained; and the experience and ability of the attorney. 8 Cal. Rule of Ct. 7.955(b). 9 Here, Petitioner and Plaintiffs’ counsel seek $900,000.00 in attorney’s fees, a 10 sum that represents fifty percent (50%) of the $1,800,000.00 gross settlement. ECF 11 No. 370 at 8. The Plaintiffs’ attorneys incurred $13,025.34 in costs. Plaintiffs’ 12 attorneys advanced all of these costs. Plaintiffs and their attorneys have agreed that 13 the fees will be deducted from the total gross settlement, with the allocated costs to 14 tbe paid by Plaintiffs from the portion of the remainder. Under this agreement, the 15 net settlement is a total of $886,974.66. 16 In consideration of the duration of this case, the amount of work performed 17 by Plaintiffs' counsel, the results obtained, and the complexity of the issues, the 18 amount of attorney’s fees sought in this case is fair and reasonable. 19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, given the nature of the harm, the costs of trial, and the 21 settlement amounts in similar cases, the Court concludes that the settlement amount is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the Minor Plaintiffs. As a result, the 22 Court ADOPTS the R&R, GRANTS the Petition to Approve the Minors' 23 Compromise, and ORDERS 24 1. $200,000 of the settlement reached with the County of San Diego will be 25 used to fund annuities for the benefit of the Minor Plaintiffs. Said amount 26 will be made payable to Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc. to fund 27 28 1 future periodic payments as outlined below, holding a total value of 2 $281,523.91: 3 a. N.G.P.M. (Payee): $50,000 made payable to Pacific Life & 4 Annuity Services, Inc. to fund future periodic payments to 5 N.G.P.M. as outlined in Exhibit 1. The total payout to N.G.P.M. 6 pursuant to the terms of the annuity is $65,946.28. 7 b. M.N.A.M (Payee): $50,000 made payable to Pacific Life & 8 Annuity Services, Inc. to fund future periodic payments to 9 M.N.A.M. as outlined in Exhibit 2. The total payout to M.N.A.M. 10 pursuant to the terms of the annuity is $71,859.21. 11 c. M.C.G.M. (Payee): $50,000 made payable to Pacific Life & 12 Annuity Services, Inc. to fund future periodic payments to 13 M.C.G.M. as outlined in Exhibit 3. The total payout to M.C.G.M. 14 pursuant to the terms of the annuity is $71,859.21. 15 d. N.E.H.M.(Payee): $50,000 made payable to Pacific Life & 16 Annuity Services, Inc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
3 4
5 6
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 MARK MANN; MELISSA MANN; ) Case No. 11CV0708 GPC (BGS)
12 N.G.P.M., a minor; M.N.A.M. a minor; ) M.C.G.M. a minor; and N.E.H.M. a ) ORDER FOR MINORS’ INTEREST IN 13 minor by and through their Guardian ) SETTLEMENT OF ACTION
14 Ad Litem, BRUCE PAUL ) [ECF No. 370] ) 15 Plaintiffs, )
16 v. ) ) Judge : Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 17 Magistrate: Hon. Bernard G. Skomal COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al, ) 18 ) 19 Defendants. ) ) 20 ) 21 ) ) 22 On January 28, 2020, the parties filed a Petition for Approval of Minor’s 23 Interest in Settlement of Action (the “Petition”). ECF No. 370. On February 10, 24 2020, Defendant County of San Diego filed a response indicating their non- 25 opposition to the Petition. ECF No. 373. On February 25, 2020, the magistrate 26 filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) approving the settlement as to the 27 28 1 payments to each of the four minor children. ECF No. 374. On February 25, 2020, 2 Defendant filed a response to the R&R indicating that it had no objections. 3 BACKGROUND 4 This lawsuit arises from allegations that Defendants San Diego County and 5 County social workers wrongfully removed the minor Plaintiffs from the care, 6 custody, and control of their parents. ECF No. 370 at 2. The Petitioner, as guardian 7 ad litem on behalf of the minor Plaintiffs, alleged that the minor Plaintiffs were 8 taken to a County shelter care facility and subjected to medical examinations 9 without the presence, notice, or consent of their parents. Id. Petitioner does not 10 represent that any minor required medical treatment as a result, nor did they seek 11 special damages for psychological treatment. Id. at 2-3. 12 On September 26, 2016, the Court approves the parties’ settlement as to some 13 claims. ECF No. 309. On Decembr 12, 2019, the parties reached a settlement on 14 the remaining claims. ECF No. 370 at 5. 15 DISCUSSION 16 District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 17(c), “to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux 18 v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). In the context of proposed 19 settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district 20 court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the 21 best interests of the minor.” Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978); see also Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) 22 (holding that “a court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise 23 or settlement of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are 24 protected, even if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the 25 minor’s parent or guardian ad litem”). 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 1 A. Gross Settlement 2 In considering the fairness of a minor’s state law settlement, “federal courts 3 generally require that claims by minors . . . be settled in accordance with applicable 4 state law.” See O'Connell & Stevenson, California Practice Guide: Federal Civil 5 Procedure Before Trial ¶ 15:138 (Cal. & 9th Cir. Eds. 2017). In addition, the Ninth 6 Circuit’s decision in Robidoux set forth guidelines for determining the 7 reasonableness of a minor’s settlement of federal claims. 638 F.3d at 1181-82. The 8 Robidoux court, which limited its holding to federal law settlements, held that 9 district courts are to “limit the scope of their review” of settlements involving minor 10 plaintiffs “to the question of whether the net amount distributed to each minor 11 plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, [1] in light of the facts of the case, 12 [2] the minor’s specific claim, and [3] recovery in similar cases.” 638 F.3d at 1179, 13 1181-82 (brackets added). 14 Plaintiffs’ unopposed Petition provides that the four minor children will each 15 receive $50,000, made payable to Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc., to fund 16 future periodic payments. ECF No. 37 at 10. Having considered the Petition, the 17 R&R, and all supporting papers and evidence and good cause appearing, the Court 18 APPROVES and GRANTS the Petition (ECF No. 370) with respect to the payments 19 to each minor plaintiff in accordance with the following: 20 1. N.G.P.M. - $65,946.28 21 2. M.N.A.M. - $71,859.21 3. M.C.G.M. - $71,859.21 22 4. N.E.H.M. - $71,859.21 23 ECF No. 370 at 8-9. 24 B. Attorney’s Fees 25 In California, courts are required to approve the attorneys' fees to be paid for 26 representation of a minor. See CAL. PROB. CODE § 2601. Attorney’s fees and 27 costs are typically controlled by statute, local rule, or local custom. Generally, fees 28 1 in minors' cases historically have been limited to twenty-five percent (25%) of the 2 gross recovery. Napier by & through Quiroz v. San Diego Cty., No. 3:15-cv- 3 00581-CAB-KSC, 2017 WL 5759803, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017). To 4 determine whether the fee is reasonable, courts consider a myriad of factors 5 including the amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services performed; 6 the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and skills required; the amount 7 involved and the results obtained; and the experience and ability of the attorney. 8 Cal. Rule of Ct. 7.955(b). 9 Here, Petitioner and Plaintiffs’ counsel seek $900,000.00 in attorney’s fees, a 10 sum that represents fifty percent (50%) of the $1,800,000.00 gross settlement. ECF 11 No. 370 at 8. The Plaintiffs’ attorneys incurred $13,025.34 in costs. Plaintiffs’ 12 attorneys advanced all of these costs. Plaintiffs and their attorneys have agreed that 13 the fees will be deducted from the total gross settlement, with the allocated costs to 14 tbe paid by Plaintiffs from the portion of the remainder. Under this agreement, the 15 net settlement is a total of $886,974.66. 16 In consideration of the duration of this case, the amount of work performed 17 by Plaintiffs' counsel, the results obtained, and the complexity of the issues, the 18 amount of attorney’s fees sought in this case is fair and reasonable. 19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, given the nature of the harm, the costs of trial, and the 21 settlement amounts in similar cases, the Court concludes that the settlement amount is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the Minor Plaintiffs. As a result, the 22 Court ADOPTS the R&R, GRANTS the Petition to Approve the Minors' 23 Compromise, and ORDERS 24 1. $200,000 of the settlement reached with the County of San Diego will be 25 used to fund annuities for the benefit of the Minor Plaintiffs. Said amount 26 will be made payable to Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc. to fund 27 28 1 future periodic payments as outlined below, holding a total value of 2 $281,523.91: 3 a. N.G.P.M. (Payee): $50,000 made payable to Pacific Life & 4 Annuity Services, Inc. to fund future periodic payments to 5 N.G.P.M. as outlined in Exhibit 1. The total payout to N.G.P.M. 6 pursuant to the terms of the annuity is $65,946.28. 7 b. M.N.A.M (Payee): $50,000 made payable to Pacific Life & 8 Annuity Services, Inc. to fund future periodic payments to 9 M.N.A.M. as outlined in Exhibit 2. The total payout to M.N.A.M. 10 pursuant to the terms of the annuity is $71,859.21. 11 c. M.C.G.M. (Payee): $50,000 made payable to Pacific Life & 12 Annuity Services, Inc. to fund future periodic payments to 13 M.C.G.M. as outlined in Exhibit 3. The total payout to M.C.G.M. 14 pursuant to the terms of the annuity is $71,859.21. 15 d. N.E.H.M.(Payee): $50,000 made payable to Pacific Life & 16 Annuity Services, Inc. to fund future periodic payments to 17 N.E.H.M. as outlined in Exhibit 4. The total payout to N.E.H.M. 18 pursuant to the terms of the annuity is $71,859.21. 19 2. Defendant’s obligation to make the periodic payments described herein 20 shall be assigned to Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc. through a 21 Qualified Assignment and funded by an annuity contract issued by Pacific Life Insurance Company, rated A+XV by A.M. Best Co. To fund the 22 periodic payments, Defendant will issue a check in the amount of 23 $200,000.00 payable to Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc. and execute 24 the Qualified Assignment and Release. 25 3. Said monies distributed to Plaintiffs N.G.P.M., a minor; M.N.A.M. a 26 minor; M.C.G.M. a minor; and N.E.H.M. represented by their guardian ad 27 litem, Bruce Paul, are not to be withdrawn until disbursed in accordance 28 1 with the payment schedule set forth as Exhibits 1-4 to the Petition (ECF 2 No. 370) filed in this matter. 3 4. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, said monies distributed to 4 Plaintiffs N.G.P.M., a minor; M.N.A.M. a minor; M.C.G.M. a minor; and 5 N.E.H.M. represented by their guardian ad litem, Bruce Paul, are not to 6 be used for the minors’ necessities of life while they are minors. 7 5. The balance of the settlement funds from the settlement with the County 8 of San Diego will be disbursed as follows: 9 a. $900,000.00 in attorneys’ fees, made payable to “The Law Office of 10 Donnie R. Cox.” 11 b. $13,025.34 in costs, made payable to “The Law Office of Donnie R. 12 Cox.” 13 c. The balance of $886,974.66, made payable to “The Law Office of 14 Donnie R. Cox, Mark Mann and Melissa Mann.” 15 16 | IT ISSO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED. 17 18 ||Dated: February 26, 2020 3 apho CxS J 19 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 □ 2-1 1euyNTORAPCIRAS)