Cabrera et al v. United States of America

Filing 33

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF JOSIAH CABRERAS PETITION FOR MINORS COMPROMISE AND GRANTING PERMISSION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND VACATING JUNE 20, 2018 HEARING. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/15/2018. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

CHRISTINA CABRERA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 1:17-cv-00019-SAB
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF JOSIAH
CABRERA’S PETITION FOR MINOR’S
COMPROMISE AND GRANTING
PERMISSION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL AND VACATING JUNE 20,
2018 HEARING

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

(ECF No. 31)
14
15

Currently before the Court is a petition for minor’s compromise by Plaintiff Josiah

16 Cabrera (“Plaintiff”), by and through his guardian ad litem Patricia Quezada. (ECF No. 31.)
17

A hearing on the motion was set for June 20, 2018. The Court, having reviewed the

18 record, finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g).
19 Accordingly, the previously scheduled hearing set for June 20, 2018, will be vacated and the
20 parties will not be required to appear at that time.
21

I.

22

BACKGROUND

23

Around May 6, 2014, Plaintiff was taken by his mother to the Family Health Care

24 Network in Woodlake, California where he was a patient. (Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 1.) The Family
25 Health Care Network is a federally funded medical facility. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 7.) Plaintiff was in
26 the care of a medical staff member who did not properly secure him on the examination table.
27 (Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff fell off the examination table and broke his arm. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff
28 had to have corrective surgery for the fracture and it has healed properly. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 12.)

1

1

On January 4, 2017, Christina Cabrera and Josiah Cabrera filed this action along with a

2 motion for appointment of Christina Cabrera as guardian ad litem for the minor. (ECF Nos. 1,
3 2.) On January 10, 2017, Christina Cabrera’s motion for appointment as guardian ad litem was
4 denied without prejudice. (ECF No. 5.) On January 19, 2017, a motion was filed to appoint
5 Patricia McGrew as guardian ad litem for the minor. (ECF No. 6.) After receiving supplemental
6 briefing, the motion was granted and Patricia McGrew was appointed as guardian ad litem for
7 Josiah Cabrera on February 3, 2017. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.)
8

On March 8, 2017, Christina Cabrera and Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the

9 magistrate judge. (ECF No. 12.) Defendant filed an answer on April 25, 2017. (ECF no. 13.)
10 On October 18, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss Christina Cabrera’s claims in this
11 action. (ECF No. 22.) A stipulation was filed that complied with Rule 41 of the Federal Rules
12 of Civil Procedure on November 2, 2017. (ECF No. 24.) On November 3, 2017, the stipulation
13 was granted; and Christina Cabrera is no longer a plaintiff in this action. (ECF No. 25.) On
14 January 23, 2018, Defendant consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge and this action
15 was reassigned to the undersigned for all purposes. (ECF Nos. 26, 27.)
16

On April 11, 2018, the parties filed a notice of settlement. (ECF No. 29.) On May 16,

17 2018, a petition for minor’s compromise was filed. (ECF No. 31.) On June 5, 2018, Defendant
18 filed a statement of non-opposition to the petition for minor’s compromise. (ECF No. 32.)
19

II.

20

LEGAL STANDARD

21

Local Rule 202(b) states that “[n]o claim by or against a minor or incompetent person

22 may be settled or compromised absent an order by the Court approving the settlement or
23 compromise.” Any application for approval of a proposed settlement or compromise must
24 disclose, among other things, the following:
25
26
27
28

the age and sex of the minor or incompetent, 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 or other consideration was determined, including such
additional information as may be required to enable the Court to determine the
fairness of the settlement or compromise....

2

1 Local Rule 202(b)(2).
“District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c),

2

3 to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177,
4 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). “In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs,
5 this special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the
6 settlement serves the best interests of the minor.’ ” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. The Ninth
7 Circuit has directed that “[s]o long as the net recovery to each minor plaintiff is fair and
8 reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery in similar cases, the district court should
9 approve the settlement as proposed by the parties.” Id. However, in Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit
10 cautioned that this inquiry “requires only that the district court consider whether the net recovery
11 of each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable, without regard to the amount received by adult co12 plaintiffs and what they have agreed to pay plaintiffs’ counsel.” Id. at 1182 (holding that district
13 court erred in denying settlement based solely on the proportion of the settlement going to
14 plaintiffs’ counsel).
15

III.

16

DISCUSSION
The petition for minor’s compromise sets forth the required information. Plaintiff is 5

17

18 years of age. (Decl. of John Sarsfield (“Sarsfield Decl.”) 18,1 ECF No. 31.) The minor’s claims
19 are based on the injury he suffered when he was 15 months of age and fell off an examination
20 table during a medical exam at the Family Health Care Network in Woodlake, California.
21 (Petition of Minor Josiah Cabrera for Approval of Settlement 1-2, ECF No. 31.) The injuries
22 sustained by Plaintiff was a broken arm from which he fully recovered. (Report of Dr. Jon Oda,
23 ECF No. 31 at 5-6.) He was covered by Medi-Cal at the time and suffered no out of pocket
24 medical expenses, although there is a Medi-Cal lien which has been negotiated down to
25 $1,379.97. (Department of Health Care Services Letter, ECF No. 31 at 8-9.)
Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed to a dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s claims in

26
27
1

All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the

28 CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

3

1 exchange for the sum of $2,000.00. (Stipulation for Compromise Settlement and Release of
2 Federal Tort Claims ¶ 2, ECF No. 31 at 11-15.)
3

In evaluating the settlement, Plaintiff’s counsel considered the relatively low Medi-Cal

4 lien, comparable cases via Findlaw, and took into account that Plaintiff’s mother, who was the
5 sole eyewitness other than the employee involved, has a background that would subject her to
6 serious questions regarding her credibility. (Sarsfield Decl. 18, ECF No. 31.) Finally, counsel
7 considered that given the minor’s age at the time, fifteen months, it is likely that he will have no
8 recollection of the incident. (Id.)
9

Plaintiff is represented by John Sarsfield in this matter. (Sarsfield Decl. 17, ECF No. 31.)

10 Although the plaintiffs originally entered into a contingency agreement with counsel,
11 representation is now pro bono and counsel is paying the various costs associated with bringing
12 this action, and to date has donated approximately $1,500.00 in costs associated with pursuing
13 the administrative claim and lawsuit.

(Id. at 18.)

Counsel will be taking no fees or

14 reimbursement for this action. (Id.) No relationship, economic, social or otherwise, exists
15 between counsel and the minor or his mother. (Id.) Similarly, the guardian ad litem is not
16 charging a fee for her services and has no relationship with the minor or his mother. (Id. at 19.)
17 The guardian ad litem is in agreement with the settlement. (Id.)
18

Having considered the unopposed petition, the Court finds that the settlement agreement

19 is fair and reasonable in light of the credibility issues that exist with Plaintiff’s witness and the
20 fact that Plaintiff did not sustain any permanent injury from the fall. Further, the guardian ad
21 litem agrees with the settlement.
22

IV.

23

ORDER

24

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1.

at that time;

26
27
28

The hearing set for June 20, 2018, is VACATED and the parties need not appear

2.

Plaintiff Josiah Cabrera’s petition for minor’s compromise (ECF No. 31) is
GRANTED and the settlement is APPROVED;

4

3.

1

Counsel for minor is authorized to receive the funds on the minor’s behalf and
pay the State of California lien in this matter;

2
4.

3

A federally insured blocked interest-bearing credit union2 account shall be set up

4

in which the remainder of the minor’s funds shall be deposited. The account shall

5

be set up in the name of the minor and with the birth date of the minor; and the

6

blocked account shall indicate that it belongs to the minor. No withdrawals of

7

principal or interest shall be made from the blocked account without a written

8

order under this case name and number, signed by a judge, and bearing the seal of

9

this Court, until the minor attains the age of 18 years;
5.

10

The minor’s attorney shall deliver a copy of this order to the financial institution
at the time of deposit;

11
6.

12

Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the settlement funds from Defendant,

13

Plaintiff’s counsel shall file under seal proof to the Court that the monies were

14

deposited into a federally insured blocked account for the benefit of the minor;
7.

15

Within sixty (60) days of the receipt of the settlement funds from Defendant, the

16

parties shall file a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

17

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) or a joint status report explaining why a stipulated dismissal has

18

not been filed; and
8.

19

This order authorizes the filing under seal of documents identifying the federally
insured blocked account into which the minor’s funds are deposited.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated:

June 15, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2

Due to the small dollar amount that the minor is receiving, the fees charged by a bank will diminish the amount of
the account. Accordingly, the minor’s account shall be set up in a credit union that will not charge fees for the
maintenance of the account.

5