(PC) Dubrin et al v. Bonilla

Filing 143

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minor's Claims (Doc. #140 be GRANTED re #38 Third Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/5/2016. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DURBIN, et al.,

Case No. 1:11-cv-01484-AWI-JLT (PC)
Plaintiffs,

12
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE

13
BONILLA, et al.,

(Doc. 140)

14
Defendants.

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

15
In this action, the plaintiffs claim prison officials denied them a sufficient amount of

16
17

“exercise time.” Juan Manuel Sanchez-Zavala was a plaintiff in this matter but he is now

18

deceased. His daughter has substituted in his place and through her guardian ad litem, Jessica

19

Lynn Bergreen, seeks the Court’s approval for the settlement (Doc. 140.) Likewise, the

20

defendants agree with the request for the Court to approve the compromise. (Doc. 141 at 2)

21

Because the Court finds the proposed settlement of the child’s claims to be fair and reasonable,

22

the Court recommends that the minor’s compromise be approved.

23

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

24

This court has a duty to protect the interests of minors participating in litigation before the

25

court. Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir.1983). To carry out this duty, the

26

court must “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests

27

of the minor.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir.2011) (internal quotations

28

omitted). The court’s inquiry focuses solely on an evaluation of “whether the net amount
1

1

distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of

2

the case, the minor's specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Ribodoux, 638 F.3d at 1182.

3

This evaluation must be made “without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value

4

designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs' counsel.” Id.
No settlement or compromise of “a claim by or against a minor or incompetent person” is

5
6

effective unless it is approved by the Court. Local Rule 202(b). The purpose of requiring the

7

Court’s approval is to provide an additional level of oversight to ensure that the child’s interests

8

are protected. Toward this end, a party seeking approval of the settlement must disclose:

9

the age and sex of the minor, the nature of the causes of action to be settled or
compromised, the facts and circumstances out of which the causes of action arose,
including the time, place and persons involved, the manner in which the
compromise amount . . . was determined, including such additional information as
may be required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement or
compromise, and, if a personal injury claim, the nature and extent of the injury
with sufficient particularity to inform the Court whether the injury is temporary or
permanent.

10
11
12
13
14

Local Rule 202(b)(2).

15

II.

16

ANALYSIS
The child was born on March 8, 2001 and lives with her mother in Oxnard, California.

17

(Doc. 123 at 2; Doc. 123-2) The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has

18

agreed to pay the sum of $2,650 to each Plaintiff which equates to a combined total of $68,900.

19

After attorney fees, the proposed minor's compromise would result in a net amount of $1,987.501

20

to the child. (Doc. 140 at 2.)
Here, the deprivation at issue did not cause the death of the child’s father. Rather, the

21
22

award stems from Mr. Zavala’s claims that he was not provided sufficient outdoor exercise time.

23

Cases of this type frequently do not succeed2 and the Court is unaware of the extent of the

24

1

25
26
27
28

This amount is arrived at by subtracting twenty-five percent, or $662.50, for attorney’s fees from $2,650. (See Doc.
140, p. 2.) Plaintiffs’ counsel waives costs from minor Sanchez.
2

See Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) [Genuine issue of material fact whether denial of
outdoor exercise for 11 months was reasonable.]; Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199 (9th Cir. 1979) [Affirming
the trial court’s order for regular exercise for inmates deprived of outdoor exercise for years but not deciding whether
denial of outdoor exercise is a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment.]; LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1458
(9th Cir. 1993) [Denial of outdoor exercise for extended periods is reasonable where the inmate’s conduct justifies
it.]

2

1

physical or mental damages Mr. Zavala suffered, if any, assuming he could prove his case.

2

Moreover, if the case proceeds to trial, the Court finds that the risk of loss—especially in light of

3

the inability of the child to present evidence of the impacts on Mr. Zavala caused by the

4

deprivation alleged—is great. Thus, the Court finds that the net amount of the proposed

5

settlement to be distributed to the child is fair and reasonable in light of the facts of the case,3 the

6

specific claims and the recoveries in other cases. See Doe ex rel. Scott v. Gill, Nos. C 11-4759

7

CW, C 11-5009 CW, C 11-5083 CW, 2012 WL 1939612 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012) (approving

8

minor's compromise in the net amount of $7,188.85 in a § 1983 case involving the shooting and

9

killing of plaintiff's mother by police officers); Swayzer v. City of San Jose, No. C10–03119-

10

HRL, 2011 WL 3471217 (N.D. Cal. Aug.5, 2011) (approving minor's compromise for net amount

11

of $2,054.17 in a § 1983 case involving the alleged wrongful death of plaintiff's father during his

12

arrest).

13

CONCLUSION

14
15

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the motion to approve compromise of
minor’s claims (Doc. 140) be GRANTED.

16

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

17

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 30

18

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

19

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned “Objections to

20

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result

27
28

3

Again, there is no claim that the Mr. Zavala’s death was related to the claims made in this litigation.

3

1

in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing

2

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 5, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
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
4