D.C. et al v. Oakdale Joint Unified School District et al

Filing 74

ORDER GRANTING 61 Petition for Approval of Minor's Compromise. The previously scheduled hearing date of 1/25/2013 is VACATED and the parties shall not appear. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 1/23/2013. (Hernandez, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 D.C., by and through his parent and guardian ad litem, T.C., et al., CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01112-SAB 10 ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISE Plaintiffs, 11 v. (ECF No. 61.) 12 13 14 OAKDALE JOINT DISTRICT, et al., UNIFIED SCHOOL Defendants. / 15 16 Plaintiffs D.C. and T.C. (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Request for Approval of Proposed Settlement 17 and Release of All Claims on Behalf of a Minor (“Request for Approval”) on November 15, 2012. 18 (ECF No. 61.) The Court, having reviewed the record, finds this matter suitable for decision without 19 oral argument. See Local Rule 202(b)(1) and 230(g). Accordingly, the previously scheduled hearing 20 on January 25, 2013 will be vacated. 21 For the reasons set forth below, the Request for Approval will be granted. 22 I. 23 BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendants Oakdale Joint Unified School District, Katie Craig, 25 Stephanie Hicks, Kathleen Jenkins, Larry Mendonca, Julie Minabe, Rhonda Duarte, Shauna Rico 26 and Cinnamon Simpson (“Defendants”) for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 27 and Improvement Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs’ 28 claims arose from D.C.’s enrollment in a school within the Oakdale Joint Unified School District. 1 1 T.C. is D.C.’s mother and guardian ad litem. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed to provide 2 proper programs, services and activities to D.C., who was a qualified individual with a disability. 3 D.C. began having behavioral outbursts at school. The school used restraints and other punishments 4 on D.C. On one occasion, D.C. sprained his ankle when restraints were used. 5 Defendants filed a notice of settlement on October 17, 2012. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiffs filed 6 their Request for Approval on November 15, 2012, seeking court approval of the settlement as 7 required by Local Rule 202, because D.C. is a minor. (ECF No. 61.) Although Defendants initially 8 filed an opposition to the Request for Approval on November 16, 2012 (ECF No. 62), Defendants’ 9 opposition was later withdrawn (ECF No. 68).1 10 II. 11 LEGAL STANDARDS 12 Local Rule 202(b) states that “[n]o claim by or against a minor or incompetent person may 13 be settled or compromised absent an order by the Court approving the settlement or compromise.” 14 Local Rule 202(b)(1) requires initial state court approval in cases where the minor is represented by 15 an appointed representative, except in cases where the U.S. courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Local 16 Rule 202(b)(2) requires the parties to file a motion disclosing: (1) the age and sex of the minor, (2) 17 the nature of the causes of action to be settled, (3) the facts and circumstances out of which the 18 causes of action arose, including the time, place and persons involved, (4) the manner in which the 19 compromise amount or other consideration was determined, including such additional information 20 as may be required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement, and (5) if a 21 personal injury claim, the nature and extent of the injury with sufficient particularity to inform the 22 Court whether the injury is temporary or permanent. Any reports from physicians or other similar 23 experts must also be provided to the Court, if any. Local Rule 202(b)(2). Where the minor is 24 represented by an attorney, the motion must also disclose information regarding the attorney’s 25 26 27 28 1 Defendants initially objected that Plaintiffs failed to allocate settlement funds to pay off a potential MediCal lien and failed to obtain prior state court approval of the settlement. Defendants withdrew their objections after Plaintiffs provided additional information regarding the potential Medi-Cal lien and obtained state court approval of the settlement. Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly filed a proposed order approving the settlement on January 11, 2013. (ECF No. 69.) 2 1 compensation and relationship with the parties. Local Rule 202(c). 2 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 3 safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 4 (9th Cir. 2011). “In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this 5 special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement 6 serves the best interests of the minor.’” Id. However, in Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit cautioned that 7 this inquiry “requires only that the district court consider whether the net recovery of each minor 8 plaintiff is fair and reasonable, without regard to the amount received by adult co-plaintiffs and what 9 they have agreed to pay plaintiffs’ counsel.” Id. at 1182 (holding that district court erred in denying 10 settlement based solely on the proportion of the settlement going to plaintiffs’ counsel). 11 III. 12 DISCUSSION 13 The Court finds that the Request for Approval serves the best interests of the minor plaintiff, 14 D.C., and contains the information required by Local Rule 202. The claims in this action were 15 settled for the sum total of $65,000.00, with $30,000.00 to be disbursed to D.C. (held in a Uniform 16 Minor’s Account, with T.C. as custodian), $18,379.00 to T.C., $6,689.50 to Mr. Goldsen for legal 17 fees, $6,689.50 to Ms. Loughrey for legal fees, and $3,242.00 to Medi-Cal to satisfy potential liens 18 related to D.C.’s medical treatment. Neither attorney representing Plaintiffs became involved at 19 Defendants’ insistence, either directly or indirectly. Neither attorney has any relationship with 20 Defendants. The attorneys representing Plaintiffs worked on a contingency fee basis (25%), and 21 Plaintiffs agreed to reimburse their attorneys for the costs of the lawsuit, which were fronted by the 22 attorneys. The attorneys agreed to accept $13,379.00 (20.6% of the settlement) with no additional 23 fees in lieu of the 25% contingency fee and costs. 24 The facts and circumstances of the lawsuit involved D.C.’s enrollment in a school within the 25 Oakdale Joint Unified School District. Plaintiffs alleged that the school failed to provide proper 26 programs, services and activities to D.C. to accommodate his disability (attention deficit 27 hyperactivity disorder and specific learning disability). Plaintiffs also allege that the school 28 improperly used restraints on D.C. on multiple occasions, including one occasion where D.C. 3 1 sprained his ankle and received medical treatment. D.C. was insured through Medi-Cal and received 2 treatment for his sprained ankle through Medi-Cal. 3 4 5 6 The proposed settlement was approved by the Superior Court of California for the County of Stanislaus on December 24, 2012. Based upon the information provided, the Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of D.C. 7 IV. 8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 9 10 11 Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants the Request for Approval. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 12 13 The previously scheduled hearing date of January 25, 2013 is VACATED and the parties shall not appear; 2. The settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants is hereby approved. The sum total 14 of the settlement is $65,000.00, which shall be disbursed as follows: $30,000.00 15 disbursed to D.C.; $18,379.00 disbursed to T.C., $6,689.50 disbursed to Mr. Goldsen 16 for legal fees, $6,689.50 disbursed to Ms. Loughrey for legal fees, and $3,242.00 17 disbursed to Med-Cal; 18 3. The $30,000.00 to be disbursed to D.C. shall be placed in a blocked account at Chase 19 Bank, 120 East Alder Street, Fort Bragg, California, 95437, pursuant to the terms and 20 conditions set forth in the order approving compromise of pending action entered by 21 the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus, case number 660360; 22 4. 23 24 Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel are hereby authorized to execute any documents necessary, including a settlement release and dismissal to effectuate this settlement. 5. The entire settlement sum of $65,000.00 shall be paid by Defendants to Loughery and 25 Associates’ Attorney Client Trust Account. Loughery and Associates is ordered to 26 thereafter make the appropriate distributions of the settlement funds, including 27 making the deposit of $30,000.00 in the blocked account for Plaintiff D.C., as set 28 forth above; and 4 1 6. 2 The parties are ordered to file dispositive documents dismissing this action within twenty (20) days. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: i1eed4 January 23, 2013 /s/ Stanley A. Boone UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?