Rosemary Hinojosa Mullins, as an individual and as guardian ad litem for K.A.M., a minor v. County of Fresno, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 23, 2026
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00405
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ROSEMARY HINOJOSA MULLINS, as an Case No. 1:21-cv-00405-KES-SAB individual and as guardian ad litem for 12 K.A.M., a minor, ORDER VACATING JANUARY 28, 2026 HEARING 13 Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 v. RECOMMENDING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR MINOR’S 15 COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., COMPROMISE

16 Defendants. (ECF No. 100)

17 18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Rosemary Hinojosa Mullins’s, on behalf of minor 19 K.A.M., unopposed petition for minor’s compromise. (ECF No. 100.) The matter was referred 20 to the Magistrate Judge for the issuance of findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds this matter 22 suitable for decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). Thus, the hearing set for 23 January 28, 2026 will be vacated and the parties will not be required to appear at that time. For 24 the reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends the petition for minor’s compromise be 25 granted. 26 / / / 27 / / / / / / 1 I. 2 RELEVANT BACKGROUND 3 This case concerns the fatal shooting of Kenneth Mullins by the Fresno Sheriff’s Office 4 on March 6, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs are decedent’s mother, Rosemary Mullins, and his 5 minor daughter and successor-in-interest, K.A.M. (Id.) K.A.M. is a female minor who was born 6 on January 24, 2014. (ECF No. 100, p. 6; ECF No. 100-3, Mark Schallert Declaration 7 (“Schallert Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Plaintiff Rosemary Mullins was appointed guardian ad litem on 8 January 27, 2021 by the Superior Court of California. (ECF No. 100-8.) 9 This action was removed to this Court on March 12, 2021. (Id.) Under Plaintiffs’ second 10 amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege federal claims under to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state law 11 claims for battery, negligence, wrongful death, and violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 12 (“Bane Act”). (ECF No. 15.) Defendants brought a motion to dismiss and moved for summary 13 judgment, both of which were granted in part and denied in part. (See ECF Nos. 14, 72.) 14 On September 22, 2025, the parties participated in mediation with retired Judge Patrick 15 O’Hara. (Schallert Decl., ¶ 20.) At the mediation, Defendants agreed to pay a lump sum of 16 $3.125 million. (Id. at ¶ 22.) The parties subsequently filed a Notice of Settlement. (ECF No. 17 98.) Plaintiff K.A.M.’s guardian ad litem then filed the instant Motion for Approval of Minor’s 18 Compromise. (ECF No. 100.) Defendants do not oppose the motion. (ECF No. 104.) 19 II. 20 LEGAL STANDARD 21 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), 22 to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 23 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). “In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, 24 this special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the 25 settlement serves the best interests of the minor.’” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 26 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). The district court’s inquiry is limited to considering “whether the 27 net recovery of each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable, without regard to the amount received 1 fairness and reasonableness of the settlement is determined “in light of the facts of the case, the 2 minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Id. 3 The Local Rules for this district provide that “[n]o claim by or against a minor . . . may 4 be settled or compromised absent an order by the Court approving the settlement or 5 compromise.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b). The purpose of requiring the Court’s approval is to 6 provide an additional level of oversight to ensure that the child’s interests are protected. Toward 7 this end, the motion for approval of a proposed settlement shall be filed pursuant to Local Rule 8 230, and must disclose, among other things, the following: 9 the age and sex of the minor or incompetent, the nature of the causes of action to be settled or compromised, the facts and circumstances out of which the causes of 10 action arose, including the time, place and persons involved, the manner in which the compromise amount or other consideration was determined, including such 11 additional information as may be required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement or compromise, and, if a personal injury claim, the 12 nature and extent of the injury with sufficient particularity to inform the Court whether the injury is temporary or permanent. 13 E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b)(2). Further, under Local Rule 202(c), 14 [w]hen the minor or incompetent is represented by an attorney, it shall be 15 disclosed to the Court by whom and the terms under which the attorney was employed; whether the attorney became involved in the application at the instance 16 of the party against whom the causes of action are asserted, directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands in any relationship to that party; and whether the 17 attorney has received or expects to receive any compensation, from whom, and the amount. 18 L.R. 202(c). Local Rule 202 also provides guidelines regarding the disbursement of money to 19 minors. Money or property recovered on behalf of a minor will be: “(1) disbursed to the 20 representative pursuant to state law upon a showing that the representative is duly qualified 21 under state law, (2) disbursed otherwise pursuant to state law, or (3) disbursed pursuant to such 22 other order as the court deems proper for the protection of the minor… .” L.R. 202(e). 23 III. 24 DISCUSSION 25 Under the terms of the parties’ settlement, Defendants have agreed to pay a lump sum of 26 $3,125,000. (Schallert Decl., ¶ 22.) Plaintiff Rosemary Mullins requests that the settlement 27 proceeds be allocated such that she and minor Plaintiff K.A.M. each receive approximately one 1 million dollars after the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 100, p. 4.) Specifically, 2 minor Plaintiff K.A.M. would receive $1.4 million of the gross settlement, or $1,010,000 after 3 attorneys’ fees and costs and Plaintiff Rosemary Mullins would receive $1.72 million of the 4 gross settlement, or $1,035,000 after paying her fees and share of the costs. (Id.) Plaintiff 5 Rosemary Mullins further requests that the minor’s funds to be deposited into a locked, interest- 6 bearing account until minor Plaintiff K.A.M. reaches the age of eighteen. The Court finds this 7 allocation reasonable under the circumstances. 8 As an initial matter, the petition for approval of the settlement sets forth the information 9 required by Local Rule 202, namely Plaintiff K.A.M’s age and sex, the nature of the causes of 10 action to be settled, the facts out of which the causes of action arose, the manner in which the 11 settlement amount was determined, and details regarding the terms of employment of Plaintiffs’ 12 attorneys in this action. K.A.M. is a female minor who was born on January 24, 2014. This 13 action arises out of the fatal shooting of minor K.A.M.’s father, Kenneth Mullins, by the Fresno 14 Sheriff’s Office as set forth in the second amended complaint. K.A.M. seeks damages arising 15 from the injuries suffered by her father, along with the individual loss of her father’s 16 companionship and loss of familial relationship. The settlement was reached during a mediation 17 under the direction of retired Judge Patrick O’Hara. 18 As shown in the pending motion, and upon the Court’s independent review of similar 19 cases, the minor Plaintiff’s recovery in this case is reasonable in light of settlements approved for 20 minors who suffered the loss of a parent during encounters with police officers.1 See, e.g., 21 Cotton ex rel. McClure v. City of Eureka, 2012 WL 3354334, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2016) 22 (approving minor’s compromise for wrongful death of minor’s father by police officers in the net 23 amount of $2,646,765.90); S.A.C. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 2020 WL 6559139, at *5 (S.D. Cal. 24 Nov. 9, 2020) (approving net settlement amount of $722,709.00 to minor in action involving the 25 shooting and killing of minor’s father by an officer); Ortiz v. Cnty. of Trinity, 2025 WL 26 1 While K.A.M.’s relationship with her father differed from that found in many cases where the father was raising 27 the child in the same household, the Court nonetheless reviewed wrongful death actions brought on behalf of minors who had lost a parent. 1 1735387, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2025) (finding the net settlement amount of $300,000.00 to 2 each minor for structured annuities arising from their father’s wrongful death by officers 3 reasonable). 4 In evaluating the reasonableness of the settlement, the Court also considers attorneys’ 5 fees. Courts in the Eastern District of California generally consider twenty-five percent of the 6 recovery as the benchmark for attorneys’ fees in contingency cases for minors. See Mitchell v. 7 Riverstone Residential Grp., 2013 WL 1680641, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2013) (collecting 8 cases). Here, counsel for Plaintiffs was hired on a contingency basis. (ECF No. 100-10.) The 9 minor fee agreement provides for twenty-five percent (25%) contingency fee recovery. (Id.) 10 Counsel expects to receive $985,000.00 from the global settlement, or twenty-five percent. 11 (ECF No. 100-2, Rosemary Mullins Declaration (“Mullins Decl.”), ¶ 7.) While the amount of 12 attorneys’ fees is a consideration independent of whether the settlement amount is fair and 13 reasonable, Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181-82, the Court notes that the fees to be deducted here are 14 at the benchmark of twenty-five percent. 15 Lastly, the proposed method of disbursing the settlement also appears to be fair and 16 reasonable under Local Rule 202(e). The petition proposes that Plaintiff K.A.M.’s funds be 17 placed in a locked, interest-bearing account at Bank of the Sierra, 2450 McCall Avenue, Selma, 18 CA 93662 until she reaches the age of eighteen. (ECF No. 100, p. 4; Mullins Decl., ¶ 8.) The 19 Court finds this proposed method is appropriate. See Williams v. Cnty. of Monterey, 2020 WL 20 7342737, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2020) (collecting cases noting that “district courts within 21 the Ninth Circuit commonly order that such funds be deposited into a blocked account for the 22 minor’s benefit”). 23 Having considered the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claims, and the recovery in 24 similar cases, the undersigned finds the settlement is fair and reasonable. 25 IV. 26 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 27 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the January 28, 2026 hearing for 1 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. The motion for the minor’s compromise (ECF No. 100) be GRANTED; and 3 2. Minor Plaintiff K.A.M. be awarded a net settlement amount of $1,010,000.00, to be 4 deposited into a locked, interest-bearing account in her name at Bank of the Sierra, 5 2450 McCall Avenue, Selma, CA 93662 until she reaches the age of eighteen; and 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 7 | action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 8 | (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 9 | findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 10 | should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 11 | district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 12 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 13 | time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 14 | appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 15 | F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 18 | Dated: _ January 23, 2026 STANLEY A. BOONE 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28