Y.M. v. Beaumont Unified School District

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 14, 2022
• Docket: 5:19-cv-01048
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 5:19-cv-01048-FLA-SP Document 130 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:3539

JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Y.M., by and through her guardian ad Case No. 5:19-cv-01048-FLA (SPx) litem NANCY P., 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF 14 v. CLAIM OR ACTION FOR MINOR OR PERSON WITH A DISABILITY 15 [DKT. 129] BEAUMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL 16 DISTRICT, a California public entity, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 Case 5:19-cv-01048-FLA-SP Document 130 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:3540

1 RULING 2 Before the court is Petitioner Y.M.’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Approval of 3 Claim or Action for Minor or Person with a Disability (“Petition”). Dkt. 129 (“Pet.”). 4 For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS the Petition. 5 DISCUSSION 6 I. Legal Standard 7 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil 8 Procedure 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. 9 Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) provides, in 10 relevant part, that a district court “must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another 11 appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in 12 an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). “In the context of proposed settlements in suits 13 involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its 14 own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the 15 minor.’” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 16 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). 17 II. Analysis 18 Petitioner seeks court approval of the offer of compromise for minor Plaintiff 19 Y.M. Pet. 3. The effect of the compromise is to settle claims for Defendants’ alleged 20 violations of K.D.’s constitutional rights in connection with Petitioner’s alleged 21 deprivation of an equal and meaningful access to her high school cheerleading 22 program due to her disability. Id. at 4, ¶ 5; see generally Dkt. 1 (Compl.). The total 23 amount offered by Defendant Beaumont Unified School District to settle Petitioner’s 24 claim is $60,000.00. Pet. at 5 ¶ 10. 25 The settlement proceeds are to be paid in one lump sum to the guardian or 26 conservator of Petitioner’s estate, Case No. PRIN1900396, filed in the Riverside 27 County Superior Court, minus (1) attorney’s fees of $40,000.00, (2) medical expenses 28 of $800.00, and (3) litigation costs of $1,642.50. Id. at 8, ¶ 14 and 10, ¶ 18(a)(1); id.

2 Case 5:19-cv-01048-FLA-SP Document 130 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:3541

1 at 95 (Ex. J). Accordingly, the net payment to Petitioner is $17,557.50. Id. at 8, ¶ 15. 2 Defendant Beaumont Unified School District (“Defendant” or “Beaumont USD”) 3 does not oppose the Petition.” Id. at 2. 4 After considering the Petition, the court APPROVES the parties’ settlement. 5 The Petition states Y.M. suffered emotional distress and regression in speech due to 6 her injuries. Id. at 4, ¶ 5. Although Petitioner has not recovered completely from the 7 effects of the injuries, the Petition states that Y.M. should be able to recover with 8 proper psychological therapy and speech development treatment. Id. at 4, ¶ 8(b). In 9 light of these facts, the court finds that the proposed net recovery for Y.M. is “fair and 10 reasonable.” See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181. The net proceeds of the settlement are 11 to be paid to the guardian or the conservator of Petitioner’s estate, which would serve 12 the best interests of Y.M. See id. 13 The court has further reviewed the proposed attorney’s fees and expenses and 14 finds they are reasonable. Petitioner’s counsel, Atyria S. Clark (“Clark”), presents a 15 copy of Petitioner’s fee agreement and attests she has expended well over five 16 hundred (500) hours working on these actions at an hourly rate of $300. Pet. 15 17 (Clark Decl.) ¶ 7; id. at 20 (Ex. A). Clark further states that she has agreed to reduce 18 the fees she has incurred in litigating these actions by over 75% to accomplish a 19 resolution of these matters and presents copies of her billing records. Id. at 15 (Clark 20 Decl.) ¶ 9; id. at 39-47 (Exs. D, E). Petitioner has also itemized the litigation costs 21 and medical expenses incurred. Id. at 6, ¶ 12 and 7, ¶ 13(b). These amounts are 22 reasonable. 23 CONCLUSION 24 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the Petition and ORDERS as 25 follows: 26 1. The settlement between Petitioner and Defendant Beaumont is APPROVED. 27 2. Petitioner’s requested payment of $40,000.00 in attorney’s fees and 28 $1,642.50 in costs is APPROVED.

3 ase 5:19-cv-01048-FLA-SP Document 130 Filed 03/14/22 Page 4of4 Page ID #:3542

I 3. The remaining balance of $17,557.50 is to be paid or delivered to the 2 guardian or conservator of Petitioner’s estate, Case No. PRIN1900396 in 3 Riverside County Superior Court. 4 4. In light of the court’s approval of the parties’ settlement, the court 5 DISMISSES the action without prejudice. The court retains jurisdiction to 6 vacate this Order and to reopen the action within 60 days from the date of 7 this Order, provided any request by a party to do so shall make a showing of 8 good cause as to why the settlement has not been completed within the 60- 9 day period, what further settlement processes are necessary, and when the 10 party making such a request reasonably expects the process to be concluded. 1] 5. This Order does not preclude the filing of a stipulation of dismissal with 12 prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, which does not require approval of 13 the court. Such stipulation shall be filed within the aforementioned 60-day 14 period, or by such later date ordered by the court pursuant to a stipulation by 15 the parties that conforms to the requirements of a showing of good cause 16 stated above. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 || Dated: March 14, 2022 1 FERNANDO. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28