Townsend v. County of Santa Cruz

Opinion

ANTONIO NEAL TOWNSEND, through Case No. 19-cv-00630-BLF his Conservator and Guardian ad Litem INTERIM ORDER FINDING Plaintiff, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO BE FAIR AND REASONABLE; AND v. DEFERRING DISBURSEMENT OF ANY SETTLEMENT FUNDS COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.,

Defendants.

On November 10, 2021, the Court held an in camera hearing to review the terms of the proposed settlement in this case, and to address concerns raised by Plaintiff Antonio Neal Townsend’s Conservator and Guardian ad Litem, Jacqueline Townsend, and by Plaintiff’s counsel. Because Ms. Townsend and Plaintiff’s counsel wished to discuss Plaintiff’s personal medical and financial issues, they requested that the hearing be limited to Ms. Townsend, Plaintiff’s counsel, the undersigned, and court staff. Plaintiff’s counsel represented that Defendants had no objection to that request. The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the hearing and the recording and transcript thereof, given the sensitivity of Plaintiff’s personal medical and financial issues that were the subject of the hearing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). The Court separately has granted Plaintiff’s motion to seal certain materials submitted in connection with the in camera hearing. This order “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). “In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court to conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court’s inquiry is limited to considering “whether the net recovery of each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable, without regard to the amount received by adult co-plaintiffs and what they have agreed to pay plaintiffs’ counsel.” Id. at 1182. “So long as the net recovery to each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery in similar cases, the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the parties.” Id. “District courts have extended the Robidoux inquiry to cases involving the approval of an incompetent plaintiff’s settlement.” Motlagh v. Macy's Corp. Servs., Inc., No. 19-CV-00042-JLB, 2020 WL 7385836, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2020) (collecting cases). In the present case, Defendants County of Santa Cruz and Telecare Corporation have agreed to pay a gross settlement amount of $5,500,000. See Plaintiff’s Status Report, ECF 135. Those funds will be allocated as follows: Gross Settlement: $5,500,000.00 Less cost advanced: $221,654.011 Net Settlement: $5,278,345.99 Less 40% Contingency Fee: $2,111,338.402 Less Medical Liens: $670,797.963 Net Amount Remaining for Plaintiff: $2,496,209.63 See id. at 2. The Court finds the settlement overall, and the proposed allocation, to be fair and reasonable. Only one of Plaintiff’s claims survived summary judgment, a claim asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff submits a declaration of counsel describing the significant amount of work that went into litigating this case prior to settlement, and providing examples of recoveries in 1 Dana Scruggs, ECF 138. The $2,496,209.63 net recovery to Plaintiff will allow him to obtain 2 specialized medical care that is necessary in light of his injuries. That settlement amount is fair 3 and reasonable in light of the uncertainties of a trial outcome where Defendants have asserted 4 credible defenses to Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the settlement and allocation are 5 APPROVED. 6 The Court DEFERS DISBURSEMENT of any settlement funds, however. It became clear 7 during the in camera hearing that the parties need to take further steps to finalize the settlement 8 agreement. Accordingly, no settlement funds are to be transferred to Plaintiff or his 9 representatives pending further order of the Court. 11 12 Dated: November 12, 2021 kom Ly hammer United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28