1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VERONICA LEAL RUIZ; STEPHANIE Case No.: 20cv1921-TWR (NLS) LEAL; ALEX LEAL; MARIA LEAL; by 12 and through their Guardian Ad Litem REPORT AND 13 ALMA CHAVEZ, RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 14 Plaintiffs, CONFIRM MINOR’S 15 v. COMPROMISE
16 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and DOES [ECF No. 38] 1-20, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm Minor’s Compromise. ECF No. 20 38. This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Todd 21 W. Robinson pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 17.1 of the United 22 States District Court for the Southern District of California. After due consideration, the 23 Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT the Motion to Confirm Minor’s 24 Compromise. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit against the County San Diego for the death of Oscar 27 Leal. ECF No. 15. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s officers used excessive force to 28 1 subdue Mr. Leal during an arrest, which led to him being unable to breathe and causing 2 his death. Id. at ¶¶ 8-10. One single cause of action remains in the complaint for a 3 Monell claim against Defendant. Id. at ¶¶ 23-33; ECF No. 17. 4 Plaintiff Veronica Leal Ruiz resided with Mr. Leal, though they were not married, 5 and is the mother to their children, Stephanie Leal, Alex Leal, and Maria Leal, who are 6 the other named plaintiffs in this case. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 1; ECF No. 38-2 at ¶ 4-5. 7 Stephanie is now 19, Alex is 12, and Maria is 7. Id. Alex and Maria remain minors and 8 are represented through their appointed guardian ad litem, Alma Chavez, who is also Mr. 9 Leal’s sister. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 1; ECF No. 38-2 at ¶ 7. 10 On August 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement, notifying the Court that 11 the parties reached a settlement on the case. ECF No. 36. The Court subsequently set a 12 briefing schedule to confirm the minor’s compromise. ECF No. 37. 13 II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 15 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 17 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Rule 17(c) provides that a district court “must 18 appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor . . . 19 who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). “In the context of proposed 20 settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court to 21 ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of 22 the minor.’” Robidoux, 638 F.2d at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 23 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); see also Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 24 1983) (“Thus, a court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or 25 settlement of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected, 26 even if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or 27 guardian ad litem”). 28 1 In this district, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 17.1, “[no] action by or on behalf of a 2 minor . . . will be settled, compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated 3 without court order or judgment. All settlements and compromises must be reviewed by 4 a magistrate judge before any order of approval will issue.” Civ. L. R. 17.1(a). In 5 addition, any “[m]oney or property recovered by a minor or incompetent California 6 resident by settlement or judgment must be paid and disbursed in accordance with 7 California Probate Code Section 3600, et seq.” Id. (b)(1). 8 District courts should “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the 9 net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable in 10 light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” 11 Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181-82. “[T]he district court should evaluate the fairness of each 12 minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement 13 value designated for the adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the 14 district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 1182. “So long as the net recovery 15 to each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery 16 in similar cases, the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the 17 parties.” Id. 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 The parties have settled the case for a total of $115,000. ECF No. 38 at 2. As 20 required, the Court will evaluate the fairness of the amount apportioned to minors Alex 21 and Maria, and whether the attorney’s fees portion of their settlement is appropriate. 22 A. Proposed Settlement Amount to Minors 23 The parties propose that the settlement amount is apportioned as follows: (1) 55% 24 of the settlement amount will be apportioned to Veronica Ruiz; and (2) 45% of the 25 settlement amount will be apportioned to the children, with each child receiving an equal 26 share. ECF No. 33 at 2. For the minors Alex and Maria, this portion would equate to 27 $17,250 each. Id. 28 1 As for the total amount of the settlement, Plaintiffs’ counsel explains that he is 2 experienced with trying such cases involving Monell liability against the County. ECF 3 No. 38-1 at ¶¶ 9-11. He explains that cases where decedents were under the influence of 4 narcotics at the time of their death were difficult to try as an attorney because of the 5 public perception of the jury against this behavior. Id. at ¶ 12. Here, it is not disputed 6 that Mr. Leal was under the influence of methamphetamines at the time of his arrest and 7 death. Id. He explained that there is often “great deference given by the general public 8 to the actions of law enforcement officers handling critical incidents” in such cases. Id. 9 As such, he states that he believes the $115,000 amount of settlement is a reasonable 10 compromise and good result for Plaintiffs. Id. 11 Plaintiffs explain that the split between Veronica Ruiz and the children was 12 negotiated between Ms. Ruiz and their guardian ad litem. Id. at 2. The reason that Ms. 13 Ruiz is allocated more is because she has been the sole provider of the children since 14 their father’s death. Id. She explains that she provides $700-900 each month as sole 15 support for the family. ECF No. 38-2 at ¶ 6. She will continue to provide for them in the 16 same manner until they are adults, and has agreed to use her share of the settlement to 17 provide for her family, in particular to move to a larger home. ECF No. 38 at 2; ECF No. 18 38-3 at ¶ 5. All three children still live with her. ECF No. 38-2. Even though Stephanie 19 is over 18, she is attending junior college, working part-time as a receptionist, and still 20 living in the family’s two-bedroom apartment. ECF No. 38-2 at ¶ 6. 21 As to the manner of distribution to the minors Alex and Maria, Plaintiffs propose 22 that the amounts will be deposited in insured blocked accounts at the branch of Wells 23 Fargo Bank, located at 930 S. Santa Fe Dr., Vista, CA 92084. ECF No. 38 at 2-3. Any 24 withdrawal before reaching the age of majority would be subject to court authorization. 25 Id. at 3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VERONICA LEAL RUIZ; STEPHANIE Case No.: 20cv1921-TWR (NLS) LEAL; ALEX LEAL; MARIA LEAL; by 12 and through their Guardian Ad Litem REPORT AND 13 ALMA CHAVEZ, RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 14 Plaintiffs, CONFIRM MINOR’S 15 v. COMPROMISE
16 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and DOES [ECF No. 38] 1-20, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm Minor’s Compromise. ECF No. 20 38. This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Todd 21 W. Robinson pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 17.1 of the United 22 States District Court for the Southern District of California. After due consideration, the 23 Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT the Motion to Confirm Minor’s 24 Compromise. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit against the County San Diego for the death of Oscar 27 Leal. ECF No. 15. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s officers used excessive force to 28 1 subdue Mr. Leal during an arrest, which led to him being unable to breathe and causing 2 his death. Id. at ¶¶ 8-10. One single cause of action remains in the complaint for a 3 Monell claim against Defendant. Id. at ¶¶ 23-33; ECF No. 17. 4 Plaintiff Veronica Leal Ruiz resided with Mr. Leal, though they were not married, 5 and is the mother to their children, Stephanie Leal, Alex Leal, and Maria Leal, who are 6 the other named plaintiffs in this case. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 1; ECF No. 38-2 at ¶ 4-5. 7 Stephanie is now 19, Alex is 12, and Maria is 7. Id. Alex and Maria remain minors and 8 are represented through their appointed guardian ad litem, Alma Chavez, who is also Mr. 9 Leal’s sister. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 1; ECF No. 38-2 at ¶ 7. 10 On August 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement, notifying the Court that 11 the parties reached a settlement on the case. ECF No. 36. The Court subsequently set a 12 briefing schedule to confirm the minor’s compromise. ECF No. 37. 13 II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 15 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 17 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Rule 17(c) provides that a district court “must 18 appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor . . . 19 who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). “In the context of proposed 20 settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court to 21 ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of 22 the minor.’” Robidoux, 638 F.2d at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 23 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); see also Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 24 1983) (“Thus, a court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or 25 settlement of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected, 26 even if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or 27 guardian ad litem”). 28 1 In this district, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 17.1, “[no] action by or on behalf of a 2 minor . . . will be settled, compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated 3 without court order or judgment. All settlements and compromises must be reviewed by 4 a magistrate judge before any order of approval will issue.” Civ. L. R. 17.1(a). In 5 addition, any “[m]oney or property recovered by a minor or incompetent California 6 resident by settlement or judgment must be paid and disbursed in accordance with 7 California Probate Code Section 3600, et seq.” Id. (b)(1). 8 District courts should “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the 9 net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable in 10 light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” 11 Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181-82. “[T]he district court should evaluate the fairness of each 12 minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement 13 value designated for the adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the 14 district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 1182. “So long as the net recovery 15 to each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery 16 in similar cases, the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the 17 parties.” Id. 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 The parties have settled the case for a total of $115,000. ECF No. 38 at 2. As 20 required, the Court will evaluate the fairness of the amount apportioned to minors Alex 21 and Maria, and whether the attorney’s fees portion of their settlement is appropriate. 22 A. Proposed Settlement Amount to Minors 23 The parties propose that the settlement amount is apportioned as follows: (1) 55% 24 of the settlement amount will be apportioned to Veronica Ruiz; and (2) 45% of the 25 settlement amount will be apportioned to the children, with each child receiving an equal 26 share. ECF No. 33 at 2. For the minors Alex and Maria, this portion would equate to 27 $17,250 each. Id. 28 1 As for the total amount of the settlement, Plaintiffs’ counsel explains that he is 2 experienced with trying such cases involving Monell liability against the County. ECF 3 No. 38-1 at ¶¶ 9-11. He explains that cases where decedents were under the influence of 4 narcotics at the time of their death were difficult to try as an attorney because of the 5 public perception of the jury against this behavior. Id. at ¶ 12. Here, it is not disputed 6 that Mr. Leal was under the influence of methamphetamines at the time of his arrest and 7 death. Id. He explained that there is often “great deference given by the general public 8 to the actions of law enforcement officers handling critical incidents” in such cases. Id. 9 As such, he states that he believes the $115,000 amount of settlement is a reasonable 10 compromise and good result for Plaintiffs. Id. 11 Plaintiffs explain that the split between Veronica Ruiz and the children was 12 negotiated between Ms. Ruiz and their guardian ad litem. Id. at 2. The reason that Ms. 13 Ruiz is allocated more is because she has been the sole provider of the children since 14 their father’s death. Id. She explains that she provides $700-900 each month as sole 15 support for the family. ECF No. 38-2 at ¶ 6. She will continue to provide for them in the 16 same manner until they are adults, and has agreed to use her share of the settlement to 17 provide for her family, in particular to move to a larger home. ECF No. 38 at 2; ECF No. 18 38-3 at ¶ 5. All three children still live with her. ECF No. 38-2. Even though Stephanie 19 is over 18, she is attending junior college, working part-time as a receptionist, and still 20 living in the family’s two-bedroom apartment. ECF No. 38-2 at ¶ 6. 21 As to the manner of distribution to the minors Alex and Maria, Plaintiffs propose 22 that the amounts will be deposited in insured blocked accounts at the branch of Wells 23 Fargo Bank, located at 930 S. Santa Fe Dr., Vista, CA 92084. ECF No. 38 at 2-3. Any 24 withdrawal before reaching the age of majority would be subject to court authorization. 25 Id. at 3. The balance of the account would be payable to the minors after they reach the 26 age of 18, for Alex Leal on April 17, 2027, and for Maria Leal on December 26, 2031. 27 Id. 28 1 The Court finds that the total amount of the settlement and the apportionment of 2 the settlement proceeds to be fair and equitable under the circumstances. In addition, the 3 Court finds that the manner of distribution to be satisfactory to protect the interests of the 4 minors until they reach the age of majority. Accordingly, the Court approves of each 5 minor Plaintiff, Alex and Maria, receiving $17,250 as their portion of the settlement. 6 B. Attorney’s Fees 7 Next, the Court turns to the issue of attorney’s fees. As a threshold matter, the 8 Court notes that under Robidoux, it is not tasked with reviewing or adjusting the fee 9 agreement between adult Plaintiffs and their counsel. See 638 F.3d at 1181-1182. 10 Accordingly, the Court leaves intact the agreement between Veronica Leal and her 11 counsel that 40% of the gross recovery from the lawsuit would be paid as fees on her 12 share. ECF No. 38-1 at ¶ 7. 13 As to the minors, district courts in California apply California law to evaluate 14 calculations of attorney’s fees for minor plaintiffs. See A.G.A. v. Cty. of Riverside, No. 15 EDCV 19-00077-VAP (SPx), 2019 WL 2871160, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2019). In the 16 Southern District of California, Local Rule 17.1 states, “[n]o action by or on behalf of a 17 minor . . . will be settled . . . without court order or judgement. All settlements and 18 compromises must be reviewed by a magistrate judge before any order of approval will 19 issue.” CivLR 17.1. The rule also states that “money or property recovered by a minor . 20 . . by settlement or judgment must be paid and distributed in accordance with California 21 Probate Code Section 3600, et seq.” Id. California Probate Code Section 3601 requires 22 courts to approve “reasonable expenses . . . including . . . attorney’s fees.” Further, 23 California Rules of Court 7.955 states that “[i]n all cases under . . . Probate Code sections 24 3600-3601, unless the court has approved the fee agreement in advance, the court must 25 use a reasonable fee standard when approving and allowing the amount of attorney’s fees 26 payable from money or property paid or to be paid for the benefit of a minor or a person 27 with a disability.” Cal. Rules of Court 7.955(a)(1); see id. 7.955(b) (listing factors to 28 consider in determining reasonable fees). 1 Plaintiffs’ counsel states that his fees as to the minors (and for Stephanie who is 2 now no longer a minor) is 20% of their recovery. ECF No. 38 at 3. Plaintiffs’ counsel 3 argues that this fee is reasonable in light of his skill and experience with such cases, the 4 contingency fee agreement, and the result achieved for Plaintiffs. 5 After review, the Court agrees that the 20% fee to the minor Plaintiffs is 6 reasonable. Accordingly, for each of Alex and Maria, 20% of their recovery would be 7 paid as attorney’s fees, which equates to $3,450 each. 8 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 9 For the foregoing reasons as discussed above, the Court RECOMMENDS that the 10 District Court approve the revised settlement agreement. 11 Consistent with the agreement, each of the minors would receive $17,250 as their 12 portion of the settlement. The funds will be deposited in insured blocked accounts at the 13 branch of Wells Fargo Bank, located at 930 S. Santa Fe Dr., Vista, CA 92084, with any 14 withdrawal before reaching the age of majority subject to court authorization and the 15 balance of the account payable to the minors after they reach the age of 18. The Court 16 also approves attorney’s fees for the minor Plaintiffs at 20% of their recovery, which 17 equates to $3,450 for each minor. 18 IT IS ORDERED that no later than October 12, 2021, any party to this action 19 may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The parties are 20 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 21 raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 22 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with 2 Court and served on all parties no later than October 19, 2021. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: September 27, 2021 5 Mite. Lemme 6 Hon. Nita L. Stormes United States Magistrate Judge
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28