Christina Gonzalez et al. v. State of California

Filing 64

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Grant 62 Uncontested Petition for Approval of Minor's Compromise re 28 Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 8/1/2022. Referred to Judge Thurston. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Lawrence, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTINA GONZALEZ, ET. AL.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET. AL.,

15

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00912-JLT-BAK
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO GRANT UNCONTESTED PETITION
FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S
COMPROMISE
(Doc. No. 62)

16
17
18
19

On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff J.G., a minor, by and through her mother and guardian ad litem

20

Jessica Soliz, filed an uncontested petition for approval of minor’s compromise.1 (Doc. No. 62).

21

Having considered the uncontested petition, the terms of the settlement, and the record in this

22

matter, the undersigned finds that the proposed settlement agreement and the method of

23

disbursement is fair and reasonable. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends

24

granting Plaintiff’s Petition for Minor’s Compromise.2

25
26
27
28

1

This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302
(E.D. Cal. 2022). See also Minute Order at Doc. No. 63.
2
Because the motion is uncontested and the memorandum in support of the petition adequately sets forth
the information required under Local Rule 202(b), there is good cause to approve the settlement without a
hearing.

1
2

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Christina Gonzalez, Anjelica Gonzalez, and Victoria Gonzalez initiated this

3

action on May 27, 2020, in Kern County Superior Court. The complaint alleged multiple claims,

4

including federal claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourth and

5

Fourteenth Amendments. (See Doc. No. 1-1). The claims arise out of alleged excessive force by

6

Defendants, resulting in the death of Jason Gonzalez. (See Doc. No. 28) The matter was

7

removed to this Court on June 30, 2020. (Doc. No. 1).

8
9

On September 10, 2020, J.G., by and through her mother and guardian ad litem Jessica
Soliz, initiated an action alleging similar claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of

10

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, arising out of the same facts. (See Gonzalez v. Nunez,

11

1:20-cv-01298-NONE-JLT, Doc. No. 1). On September 23, 2020, the Court appointed Jessica

12

Soliz as J.G.’s guardian ad litem. (Id. at Doc. No. 5). On December 7, 2020, the Court consolidated

13

the instant action and the later-filed Gonzalez v. Nunez, 1:20-cv-01298-NONE-JLT for all purposes, as

14

the plaintiffs were found to bring similar claims and present similar questions of fact and law. (Doc.

15

No. 21).

16

On June 17, 2022, the parties participated in a settlement conference before Magistrate

17

Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta, and the parties reached a settlement. (Doc. No. 59). Plaintiff

18

J.G., through her guardian ad litem, filed the instant uncontested petition for minor’s compromise

19

on July 21, 2022. (Doc. No. 62).

20

II.

APPLICABLE LAW

21

The Local Rules for this district provide that “[n]o claim by or against a minor or

22

incompetent person may be settled or compromised absent an order by the Court approving the

23

settlement or compromise.” L.R. 202(b). The purpose of requiring the Court’s approval is to

24

provide an additional level of oversight to ensure that the child’s interests are protected. Toward

25

this end, the motion for approval of a proposed settlement shall be filed pursuant to Local Rule

26

230, and must disclose, among other things, the following:

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
2

1
2
3
4

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, 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.

5
6

L.R. 202(b)(2). “When the minor or incompetent is represented by an attorney, it shall be

7

disclosed to the Court by whom and the terms under which the attorney was employed; whether

8

the attorney became involved in the application at the instance of the party against whom the

9

causes of action are asserted, directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands in any relationship

10

to that party; and whether the attorney has received or expects to receive any compensation, from

11

whom, and the amount.” L.R. 202(c).

12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) similarly imposes on district courts a special duty to

13

safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors. Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181

14

(9th Cir. 2011). In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, the

15

district court’s special duty requires it to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the

16

settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d

17

1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). However, in Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit cautioned that this inquiry

18

“requires only that the district court consider whether the net recovery of each minor plaintiff is

19

fair and reasonable, without regard to the amount received by adult co-plaintiffs and what they

20

have agreed to pay plaintiffs' counsel” and “in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific

21

claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1181-82 (holding that district court erred in denying

22

settlement based solely on the proportion of the settlement going to plaintiffs' counsel).

23

III.

24

ANALYSIS

The petition for approval of the settlement on behalf of the minor J.G. sets forth the

25

information required by Local Rule 202(b)(2). Plaintiff J.G. was a female minor who was

26

seventeen at the time the petition was filed. (Doc. No. 62 at 2). Here, the petition explains that

27

Jason Gonzalez, deceased father of J.G.,

28
3

1

had been walking in his socks on Highway 58 on August 30, 2019, a
multiple lane freeway with a speed limit of 65 miles an hour when
CHP [California Highway Patrol] was called out to monitor the
situation. Mr. Gonzalez ran across lanes of traffic in the presence of
CHP officers after an unknown vehicle stopped to offer him a ride.
Mr. Gonzalez had consumed PCP and methamphetamine at some
point before this incident. He continued walking on the inside
shoulder of the highway, and CHP officers eventually tackled him
and handcuffed him so he couldn’t create a danger to himself or the
general public. Mr. Gonzalez suffered broken cartilage in his throat
at some point during the incident. It was not clear from discovery
who inflicted the injury, though it appears most likely Officer Mack
had his arm around Jason Gonzalez’s throat as he brought him to the
pavement. Mr. Gonzalez eventually lost consciousness at the scene,
where CPR was applied, and died of asphyxiation, at least according
to the coroner and an expert forensic pathologist retained by the
plaintiffs’ attorneys. Defendants had also retained a number of
medical experts who were of the opinion the drugs in Mr. Gonzalez’s
system caused his death.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

(Id. at 2-3).
A . Terms of Settlement
The total settlement in this case is $2,000,000.00. (Id. at 2.). According to the petition, the

16

four named plaintiffs agreed before the settlement conference that any settlement would be split

17

evenly among Christina Gonzalez, decedent’s wife at the time of his death, and decedent’s three

18

daughters; thus, under the plaintiffs’ agreement, J.G. is entitled to compensation in the amount of

19

$500,000.00. (Id. at 3). After subtracting for attorney fees and costs, the net proposed settlement

20

amount to J.G. is $349,164.08. (Id.). Petitioners request the Court to allow the funds to be placed

21

in a blocked account at Bank of America where it cannot be withdrawn, and that the funds be

22

available to J.G. on or after her eighteenth birthday, September 5, 2022.

23
24

B. Proposed Attorney Fees and Costs
Plaintiff is represented by Thomas A. Brill of The Law Offices of Young Wooldridge,

25

LLP. Counsel attests he has spent 259.7 hours working on this matter and attaches an exhibit

26

identifying a breakdown of the costs. (Doc. No. 62 at 8-13). Notably there were 29 witness and party

27

depositions and nine expert witness depositions. According to the petition, Plaintiff J.G. and her

28

attorney, entered into a retainer agreement in which they agreed to 25% attorney fees after costs.
4

1

(Id. at 4).3 Thus, out of J.G.’s share of the settlement proceeds, Plaintiff’ counsel will be awarded

2

fees and costs in the total amount of $150,835.92, representing $34,447.89 in costs and

3

$116,338.03 in attorneys’ fees (25% of $465, 552.11). (Id. at 5.). Plaintiff’s counsel represents to

4

the Court that he did not become involved in this matter at the request of any party against whom

5

any cause of action is asserted, does not stand in any relationship with any of the parties being

6

sued, and the only compensation Plaintiff’s counsel will receive is the agreed upon contingency

7

fee requested. (Id.).
Based upon the actions taken by counsel, and the fact that Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem

8
9
10

indicates her assent to the fees and costs requested, the Court finds the award is fair and
reasonable. (See Doc. No. 62 at 5).

11

C. Recovery in Similar Actions

12

As noted above, the Court must consider the outcome of similar cases to determine

13

whether the sum to settle the minor’s claims is reasonable. See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181;

14

Salmeron, 724 F.2d at 1363 (“a court must independently investigate and evaluate any

15

compromise or settlement of minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are

16

protected” even if the settlement is recommended by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem).
Here, the uncontested petition identified similar actions to support approval of the minor’s

17
18

compromise, and after independent review of similar actions in this district, the Court finds the

19

recovery is appropriate considering the amounts received in other actions. See, e.g., Estate of

20

Casimero Casillas v. City of Fresno, 2021 WL 3674517 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2021) (approving net

21

amount of $450,450.00 distributed to each minor in wrongful death and excessive force action

22

against city and police officers); E.S. ex rel. Gonzalez v. City of Visalia, No. 1:13-cv-01697-LJO-

23

BAM, 2015 WL 6956837 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015) (approving settlement of a minor’s claim for a

24

net amount of $130,444.83 in an action involving his father’s fatal shooting by police), report and

25

recommendation adopted, No. 1:13-cv-01697-LJO-BAM, 2015 WL 13215675 (E.D. Cal. Nov.

26

20, 2015).

27
28

3

A copy of the retainer agreement is not appended to the petition.

5

1

Based on the information provided in the petition and the supporting documents and

2

considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the undersigned finds the

3

settlement serves the best interests of the minor plaintiff J.G. and is fair and reasonable in light of

4

the facts of the case, the specific claim, and recoveries in similar cases.

5

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED:

6

1. The uncontested Motion for Approval of Minor’s Compromise be GRANTED, and

7

the terms of the settlement, including attorney’s fees, and the minor’s net

8

compensation of $349,164.08 to be placed in a blocked account at Bank of America

9

where it cannot be withdrawn and available to J.G. until her eighteenth birthday on

10

September 5, 2022 be APPROVED IN FULL as fair and reasonable.

11

2. The parties be DIRECTED to file with the Court a stipulation for dismissal of the

12

action with prejudice, and lodge a separate order, no later than 45 days after these

13

findings and recommendations are adopted.

14

NOTICE TO PARTIES

15

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge

16

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14)

17

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written

18

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

19

Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

20

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

21

838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

22
23
24

Dated:

August 1, 2022
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
6