Brooks, et al. v. Fresno Unified School District, et al.

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT OF MINOR'S CLAIMS signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 12/21/15 ORDERING that plaintiff's 34 Motion to approve the settlement of the minor's claims is GRANTED. It is further ordered that ( 1) the special needs trust for A.J. as presented to this court is hereby APPROVED, and LeDelldra Brooks as guardian ad litem is directed to execute the special needs trusts for the minor; (2) the amount of $303,000.00 is directed to be paid to the A.J. Special Needs Trust, and those funds shall be held in a blocked account and shall only be made available to the Trustees upon further order of the Fresno County Superior Court; (3) insomuch as the funds of the Trust are to be held exclusi vely in a blocked account, bond and periodic accounts by the Trustee are hereby waived; (4) the proper jurisdiction and venue for on-going oversight of the special needs trust shall lie with the Fresno County Superior Court; and (5) attorney's fees in the amount of $3,000 shall be paid from the special needs trust to the Dale Law Firm for preparation and set-up of the special needs trust. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14

LEDELLDRA BROOKS, and A.J., a
minor, by and through her
guardian ad litem LEDELLDRA
BROOKS,

CIV. NO. 1:15-00673 WBS BAM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
SETTLEMENT OF MINOR’S CLAIMS

Plaintiffs,

15
16
17
18

v.
FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, THERESA MONPERE,
CHRISTIE YANG and RON
BOHIGIAN, and DOES 1-30,

19

Defendants.

20
----oo0oo----

21
22

Plaintiffs LeDelldra Brooks and her minor daughter A.J.

23

brought this civil rights action against defendant Fresno Unified

24

School District based on the treatment of A.J. at Viking

25

Elementary.

26

defendant Theresa Monpere, placed A.J. in a cage-like enclosure

27

for extended periods without justification.

28

names the Principal at Viking Elementary, defendant Christie

Plaintiffs allege that A.J.’s special-needs teacher,

1

The Complaint also

1

Yang, and the former Principal of the school, defendant Ron

2

Bohigian.

3

claims: (1) violation of A.J.’s Fourth Amendment rights under 42

4

U.S.C. § 1983; (2) violation of the Americans with Disabilities

5

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; (3) violation of the

6

Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794, et seq.; (4) false

7

imprisonment; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress;

8

(6) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51,

9

et seq.; and (7) violation of section 220 of the California

10

In their Complaint, plaintiffs assert the following

Education Code.

11

On August 25, 2015, the parties participated in a

12

settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Thurston, but were

13

unable to reach a settlement.

14

conference, however, the parties reached a settlement of all

15

claims for a total of $500,000.

16

plaintiffs’ counsel will receive 25% of the total settlement.

17

The settlement further provides that costs will be deducted in

18

the amount of $9,002.51, with a total of $7,407.40 allocated as

19

A.J.’s share of the costs and the rest allocated as Brooks’

20

share.

21

of $300,000 after the deduction of attorney’s fees and costs,

22

including $3,000 in attorney’s fees for the drafting of the

23

special needs trust.

24

in a special needs trust pursuant to California Probate Code

25

section 3604 and 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(A).

26

(Docket No. 20.)

After the

The settlement provides that

Of the total settlement, A.J. will receive a net recovery

A.J.’s share of the recovery will be placed

“[T]he district court has a special duty to safeguard

27

the interests of minor plaintiffs” that requires it to “determine

28

whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the
2

1

proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.”

2

Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis

3

omitted); see also E.D. Cal. Local R. 202(b) (requiring approval

4

of the settlement of a minor’s claims).

5

specifically instructed district courts to “limit the scope of

6

their review to the question whether the net amount distributed

7

to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable,

8

in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim,

9

and recovery in similar cases.”

Robidoux v.

The Ninth Circuit has

Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181-82.

10

The court must “evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s

11

net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total

12

settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or

13

plaintiffs’ counsel--whose interests the district court has no

14

special duty to safeguard.”

15

recovery to each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light

16

of their claims and average recovery in similar cases, the

17

district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the

18

parties.”

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Id. at 1182.

“So long as the net

Id.1
The court has reviewed the allegations in this case,

including defendants’ denial as to the extent the cage-like
1

In Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit indicated that its
“holding is limited to cases involving the settlement of a
minor’s federal claims” and the court declined to “express a view
on the proper approach for a federal court to use when sitting in
diversity and approving the settlement of a minor’s state law
claims.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1179 n.2. Here, the court
exercises supplemental, not diversity, jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s state law claims, which the court in Robidoux did not
appear to exclude from its holding. The court will thus apply
the same standard under Robidoux to plaintiff’s supplemental
state law claims. Accord Colbey T. v. Mt. Diablo Unified Sch.
Dist., Civ. No. 11-03108 LB, 2012 WL 1595046, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal.
May 4, 2012).
3

1

structure was used.

2

the court is not certain that even that amount could be achieved

3

if the case proceeded to trial, especially given concerns over

4

A.J.’s ability to testify.

5

The settlement is for a substantial sum and

The court has also reviewed the confidential report by

6

the child psychologist plaintiffs’ counsel retained.

7

psychologist diagnosed A.J. with post-traumatic stress disorder

8

and estimated that two to five years of therapy would be

9

necessary for A.J. to recover from the psychological trauma

10

defendants allegedly caused.

11

the establishment of the special needs trust to ensure that A.J.

12

continues to receive the public assistance she now does, the

13

court finds that the net recovery under the settlement should be

14

more than sufficient to provide A.J. with the necessary therapy.

15

(Docket No. 39.)

The

Especially given

The court also finds that the settlement is in line

16

with the “average recovery” in factually similar cases: it falls

17

between settlements that are significantly lower in the Eastern

18

District and others that are significantly higher in the Northern

19

District.

20

Civ. No. 13-03873 LB, 2014 WL 1351208, at *1, *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr.

21

4, 2014) (approving net settlement payments ranging from $562,500

22

to $743,849.54 per child based on claims that the “children’s

23

pre-kindergarten teacher, subjected the children to regular acts

24

of child abuse or neglect and observed acts of child abuse or

25

neglect being inflicted on other special needs children in their

26

classroom, including, but not limited to, yelling, swearing and

27

inappropriately aggressive physical contact”); Phelan v.

28

Brentwood Union Sch. Dist., Civ. No. 12-00465 LB, 2013 WL 323435,

Compare, e.g., Guerrero v. Brentwood Union Sch. Dist.,

4

1

at *1, *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2013) (approving settlement with

2

net recovery of “$570,000, minus the amount of money charged for

3

drafting the trust” when minor’s “prekindergarten teacher[]

4

battered J.P. during class[ and] J.P. suffered physical and

5

emotional injuries as a result”); D.C. ex rel. T.C. v. Oakdale

6

Joint Unified Sch. Dist., Civ. No. 1:11-01112 SAB, 2013 WL

7

275271, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2013) (approving net settlement

8

payment of $30,000 based on allegations that the school “failed

9

to provide proper programs, services and activities” to a child

10

with a disability and “used restraints and other punishments on”

11

the child); D.K. ex rel. G.M. v. Solano Cnty. Office of Educ.,

12

Civ. No. 2:08-00534 MCE DAD, Docket Nos. 69, 141 (E.D. Cal. Dec.

13

21, 2011) (approving net settlement payments of $200,000 based on

14

numerous allegations of physical abuse); T.B. v. Chico Unified

15

Sch. Dist., Civ. No. 2:07-00926 GEB CMK, 2010 WL 1032669, at *2

16

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010) (approving net settlement payment of

17

$16,500 based on allegations that the minor was “subjected to

18

unnecessary force” at school).

19

Based on all of these considerations, the court finds

20

that the settlement is fair and reasonable and in the best

21

interest of the minor child.

22

the settlement of A.J.’s claims and the use of the special needs

23

trust submitted to and reviewed by the court.

24

Accordingly, the court will approve

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to

25

approve the settlement of the minor’s claims be, and the same

26

hereby is, GRANTED.

27
28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) the special needs trust
for A.J. as presented to this court is hereby approved, and
5

1

LeDelldra Brooks as guardian ad litem is directed to execute the

2

special needs trusts for the minor; (2) the amount of $303,000.00

3

is directed to be paid to the A.J. Special Needs Trust, and those

4

funds shall be held in a blocked account and shall only be made

5

available to the Trustees upon further order of the Fresno County

6

Superior Court; (3) insomuch as the funds of the Trust are to be

7

held exclusively in a blocked account, bond and periodic accounts

8

by the Trustee are hereby waived; (4) the proper jurisdiction and

9

venue for on-going oversight of the special needs trust shall lie

10

with the Fresno County Superior Court; and (5) attorney’s fees in

11

the amount of $3,000 shall be paid from the special needs trust

12

to the Dale Law Firm for preparation and set-up of the special

13

needs trust.

14

Dated:

December 21, 2015

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6