O'Neel v. City of Folsom

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 19, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02403
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 FAUN O’NEEL, individually and as No. 2:21-cv-02403-WBS-DB Guardian Ad Litem for her 13 children B.T., A.O., D.O., and A.T., 14 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 15 APPROVAL OF MINOR’S v. COMPROMISE 16 CITY OF FOLSOM, a public entity; 17 SPENSER HEICHLINGER, an individual; MELANIE CATANIO, an 18 individual; LOU WRIGHT, an individual; DOE CITY OF FOLSOM 19 DEFENDANTS, individuals; KERYN STARKS, an individual; SASHA 20 SMITH, an individual; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a public entity; DOE 21 DCFAS DEFENDANTS, individuals; and DOES 1 through 10, 22 inclusive, 23 Defendant. 24 25 ----oo0oo---- 26 Plaintiff Faun O’Neel, individually and as guardian ad 27 litem for her children B.T., A.O., D.O., and A.T, brought this § 28 1983 action alleging that defendants’ removal of her four 1 children violated, inter alia, their Fourteenth Amendment right 2 to familial association and Fourth Amendment right to be free 3 from unreasonable searches. (Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) (Docket 4 No. 49).) Donnie Cox was subsequently appointed guardian ad 5 litem for the four children on February 23, 2022.1 (Docket No. 6 9.) Plaintiffs now petition for approval of minor’s compromise 7 of the claims against the City of Folsom and two City of Folsom 8 employees, Melanie Catanio and Lou Wright. (Docket No. 76.)2 9 Defendants have not filed any opposition to the motion. 10 District courts evaluating minors’ compromises must 11 “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net 12 amount distributed to [a] minor plaintiff in the settlement is 13 fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the 14 minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases,” “without 15 regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated 16 for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel.” Robidoux v. 17 Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2011). 18 The gross settlement amount is $400,000, with $10,000 19 to be distributed to each of the four child plaintiffs (one of 20 whom is no longer a minor), $160,000 to be distributed to the 21 adult plaintiff, and 50%, or $200,000, to be distributed to 22 counsel for attorneys’ fees based on a preexisting fee agreement. 23 (Powell Decl. (Docket No. 76-1) ¶ 6.) 24 The court is familiar with the allegations made by 25

1 Plaintiffs’ counsel represents that plaintiff B.T. has 26 since reached age eighteen and is no longer a minor. 27 2 The settlement does not dispose of the claims against 28 eee eee ene IE OE IIR IOI IE EIGEN) II ED EE

1 plaintiffs regarding the removal of the child plaintiffs by the 2 City of Folsom defendants. The court finds the $10,000 amount to 3 | be distributed to each child fair and reasonable based on the 4 allegations made and a review of other child removal cases. 5 Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiffs’ petition. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the settlement of the 7 minor plaintiffs’ claims against defendants City of Folsom, 8 Melanie Catanio, and Lou Wright, as compromised pursuant to the 9 terms of the settlement reached by the parties, and as further 10 described in plaintiffs’ petition for approval of minor’s 11 compromise (Docket No. 76), is approved. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that three checks, each for 13 $10,000.00, shall be made payable to the three minors, A.O., 14 D.O., and A.T., to be deposited into individual CUTMA accounts 15 for each minor child, as outlined in the sealed Declaration of 16 | Robert R. Powell (Docket No. 79). 17 Dated: March 19, 2024 . 18 Ah thew Yh (ht. WILLIAM B. SHUBB 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28