Ledesma, et al. v. Kern County, et al.

Filing 79

ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' Petition for Approval of Minors' Compromise, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/6/2017. (The parties are directed to file a request for dismissal of this action no later than 2/27/2017.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

ADRIANA LEDESMA; JESSICA
LEDESMA; MARISSA LEDESMA, by
and through her guardian ad litem Raquel
Sierra; RONNIE MATTHEW LEDESMA,
by and through his guardian ad litem
Christina Garcia; and CHRISTINA
HERRERA,

15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiffs,

No. 1:14-cv-01634-DAD-JLT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF MINORS’
COMPROMISE
(Doc. No. 76)

v.
KERN COUNTY; KERN COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; WARREN
MARTIN; KARENA DELAGARZA;
DWAYNE PERKINS; JAMES MELTON;
and CHRISTOPHER WONG,
Defendants.

21
22

Plaintiffs Marissa Ledesma and Ronnie Matthew Ledesma, minors by and through their

23

respective guardians ad litem, petition the court for an order approving a compromise of their

24

claims. (Doc. No. 76.) A hearing on the petition was held January 5, 2017. Attorney Benjamin

25

Meiselas appeared with and on behalf of the minor plaintiffs and their respective guardians ad

26

litem. Deputy County Counsel Andrew Thomson appeared on behalf of defendants. Having

27

considered plaintiffs’ requests and heard oral argument, and for the reasons set forth below, the

28

court grants the petition for minors’ compromise.
1

1

BACKGROUND

2

This case arises from an encounter between decedent Ronnie Ledesma, Jr. and several

3

deputies of the Kern County Sheriff’s Office on August 19, 2013, in Bakersfield, California. Mr.

4

Ledesma died eight days after the incident while in custody at Kern Medical Center. Plaintiffs,

5

decedent Ledesma’s successors in interest, brought this civil rights action alleging constitutional

6

violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law civil rights and common law causes of

7

action.

8
9

Following an order on summary judgment and a settlement conference before the assigned
magistrate judge, the parties agreed to and executed a written settlement agreement with respect

10

to all claims on December 5, 2016. (See Doc. Nos. 73, 76 at 2.) The total payment under the

11

settlement agreement is $1,000,000.00. (Doc. No. 76 at 4.) Of that amount, plaintiffs’ counsel

12

has agreed to recovery of $400,000.00 in attorney’s fees, representing 40% of the total payment

13

amount.1 (Doc. No. 76 at 4.) In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel will recover $31,710.72 in costs.

14

(Id.) The remaining $568,289.28 will be distributed among the five plaintiffs according to the

15

following criteria agreed to by the plaintiffs: (1) each plaintiff’s relationship, and the length of

16

that relationship, with the decedent; (2) each plaintiff’s level of involvement and time spent in

17

this litigation; (3) the time and expenses each plaintiff incurred in the preparation of the

18

decedent’s funeral and related matters; and (4) the relative strengths and weaknesses of each

19

plaintiff’s claims if the matter proceeded to trial. (Id. at 5.) Based on these factors, plaintiffs

20

agreed to the following allocations:

21



$173,657.85 to Adriana Ledesma

22



$173,657.85 to Jessica Ledesma

23



$83,657.86 to Ronnie Matthew Ledesma

24



$68,657.86 to Marissa Ledesma

25



$68,657.86 to Christina Herrera

26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs’ counsel notes that the 40% rate approximately reflects contingency fee rates of 45%
for the three adult plaintiffs and 33% for the two minor plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 76-1 at 2.) At the
hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel further noted that for the minor plaintiffs, the 33% contingency fee
rate was reduced from the rate of 45% that was set forth in the retainer agreement.
2

1

(Id. at 5–6.) Plaintiffs Marissa Ledesma (age 15) and Ronnie Matthew Ledesma (age 4) now seek

2

court approval of their respective distributions of the settlement proceeds.

3

LEGAL STANDARD

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

minor.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dacanay v.

8

Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); see also Salmeron, 724 F.2d at 1363 (“[A] court

9

must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s claims to

10

assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected, even if the settlement has been recommended

11

or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem.” (citation omitted)).
In examining the fairness of a settlement of a minor’s federal claims, the Ninth Circuit has

12
13

held that a district court’s inquiry should focus solely on “whether the net amount distributed to

14

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

15

minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82; see also

16

id. at 1179 n.2 (limiting the court’s holding to cases involving federal claims only). Where a

17

settlement involves state law claims, federal courts generally are guided by state law. See

18

Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶ 15:138

19

(Cal. & 9th Cir. Eds. 2015) (“Federal courts generally require that claims by minors . . . be settled

20

in accordance with applicable state law. California law requires court approval of the fairness

21

and terms of the settlement.”). A settlement for a minor and attorney’s fees to represent a minor

22

must be approved by the court. Cal. Prob. Code § 3601; Cal. Fam. Code § 6602. Reasonable

23

expenses and court costs to be paid out of the settlement also must be approved by the court. Cal.

24

Prob. Code § 3601. Finally, the Local Rules of this court require disclosures regarding the minors

25

involved, the nature of the controversy, the manner in which the compromise was determined,

26

and whether a conflict of interest may exist between the minor and her attorney. See Local Rules

27

202(b)–(c).

28

/////
3

1
2

DISCUSSION
The proposed settlement agreement in this case provides that plaintiff Marissa Ledesma

3

will receive $68,657.86, and plaintiff Ronnie Matthew Ledesma will receive $83,657.86. At the

4

hearing on this matter, plaintiffs indicated that all named plaintiffs, including the minor plaintiffs

5

by and through their guardians ad litem, met privately outside the presence of their counsel to

6

arrive at a suitable agreement regarding the fair distribution of settlement proceeds. Furthermore,

7

at the hearing the minor plaintiffs, through their respective guardians ad litem, expressed their

8

satisfaction with the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, including the apportionment of

9

attorney’s fees with respect to counsel’s representation on their behalf.

10

Accordingly, having carefully reviewed plaintiffs’ submissions and having discussed this

11

matter at the hearing with the minor plaintiffs through their respective guardians ad litem, the

12

court finds that the proposed settlement, including the attorney’s fee rate, is fair and reasonable in

13

light of the facts and circumstances of this case and recoveries in similar cases.

14

CONCLUSION

15

For the reasons stated above,

16

1. The court grants plaintiffs’ petition for minors’ compromise (Doc. No. 76);

17

2. Plaintiff Marissa Ledesma, by and through her guardian ad litem Raquel Sierra, shall

18

a. Within fourteen days of receipt, deposit her settlement proceeds, in the net

19

amount of $68,657.86, in a blocked account at Kern Schools Federal Credit

20

Union, whereby such proceeds may only be withdrawn by Marissa Ledesma,

21

upon an order of this court or when she reaches the age of eighteen; and

22

b. Within fourteen days of the deposit, submit a proof of deposit to this court;

23

3. Plaintiff Ronnie Matthew Ledesma, by and through his guardian ad litem Christina

24
25

Garcia, shall
a. Within fourteen days of receipt, deposit his settlement proceeds, in the net

26

amount of $83,657.86, in a blocked account at Kern Schools Federal Credit

27

Union, whereby such proceeds may only be withdrawn by Ronnie Matthew

28

Ledesma, upon an order of this court or when he reaches the age of eighteen;
4

1

and

2
3

b. Within fourteen days of the deposit, submit a proof of deposit to this court; and
4. The parties are directed to file a request for dismissal of this action no later than

4
5
6

February 27, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 6, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5