Williams v. County Of Monterey

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 MONIA WILLIAMS, individually and as Case No. 19-cv-01811-BLF Guardian ad Litem for minors L.S. and Q.S., 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING RENEWED 9 EX PARTE PETITION FOR v. APPROVAL OF MINORS’ 10 COMPROMISE COUNTY OF MONTEREY, et al., 11 [Re: ECF 106] Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ renewed Ex Parte Petition for Approval of Minors’ 14 Compromise. See Renewed Petition, ECF 106. The renewed petition is GRANTED for the 15 reasons discussed below. 16 Plaintiff Monia Williams (“Williams”), individually and as Guardian ad Litem for her two 17 minor children, Plaintiffs L.S. and Q.S., filed this action against the County of Monterey, the City 18 of Salinas, and several individuals following the removal of L.S. and Q.S. from her care. Two 19 defendants, Josefina Duran and Marcos Estrada, have agreed to settle Plaintiffs’ claims against 20 them for $40,000. On December 4, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Petition for Approval of 21 Minors’ Compromise. See Petition, ECF 102. The petition proposed that the $40,000 in 22 settlement funds be distributed as follows: $9,451.47 to counsel for reimbursement of costs 23 incurred; $12,274.26 to counsel for attorneys’ fees incurred; $6,272.27 to Ms. Williams; $6,000 to 24 L.S.; and $6,000 to Q.S. See id. at 3. The Court determined that the proposed distribution was 25 “fair and reasonable” to the minor plaintiffs, L.S. and Q.S., as required under Robidoux v. 26 Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). See Order Denying Ex Parte Petition at 1-2, 27 ECF 105. However, the Court declined to approve the minors’ compromise because the petition 1 litigation costs. See id. at 3. The Court noted that Plaintiffs had not cited, and the Court had not 2 || discovered, any case in which a minor’s settlement proceeds were retained by the minor’s counsel 3 to cover future litigation costs. See id. The Court denied the petition on that basis. See id. 4 Plaintiffs have filed a renewed petition, proposing the same distribution of the $40,000 in 5 settlement funds,! but providing that the entirety of L.S.’s $6,000 recovery will be placed in a 6 || blocked savings account for the benefit of L.S., and the entirety of Q.S.’s $6,000 recovery will be 7 || placed in a blocked savings account for the benefit of Q.S. See Renewed Petition at 6, ECF 106. 8 || With that modification, the Court GRANTS the renewed petition. 9 ORDER 10 (1) The renewed Ex Parte Petition for Approval of Minors’ Compromise (ECF 106) is 11 GRANTED. The Court APPROVES the settlement of the claims of minors L.S. and Q.S. against 12 || Defendants Josefina Duran and Marcos Estrada, as compromised pursuant to the terms of the 13 settlement reached among the parties, and as further described in the renewed Ex-Parte Petition 14 || for Approval of Minors’ Compromise (ECF 106) and this order. 3 15 (2) Plaintiffs’ counsel SHALL deposit each minor’s settlement proceeds into a blocked a 16 || savings account for the minor’s benefit. A total of $6,000 shall be deposited into a blocked 3 17 account for the benefit of L.S., and a total of $6,000 shall be deposited into a blocked account for 18 || the benefit of Q.S. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file a notice informing the Court when those deposits 19 are completed. 20 (3) The Court APPROVES the distribution of attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs’ 21 counsel as set forth in the Ex-Parte Petition For Approval Of Minors’ Compromise (ECF 106). 22 | 23 Dated: December 16, 2020 Me. ty) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 24 United States District Judge 25 26 | There is a slight discrepancy between the petition and the renewed petition as to Ms. Williams’ 47 || recovery. The petition provided that Ms. Williams would recover $6,272.27 while the renewed petition provides that Ms. Williams will recover $6,274.27. See Petition at 3, ECF 102; Renewed 2g || Petition at 3, ECF 106. Ms. Williams has agreed that Plaintiffs’ counsel may retain all but $3,000 of her settlement proceeds to offset future litigation costs.