Wilson v. City of West Sacramento et al
Filing
71
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/14/2016 ORDERING 68 that plaintiff's motion to approve the settlement of her claims be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 67 (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
13
REBECCA WILSON, by and
through her guardian ad litem
HEATHERLYN BEVARD,
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
18
19
CIV. NO. 2:13-02550 WBS AC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
SETTLEMENT OF INCOMPETENT’S
CLAIMS
v.
CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO,
SERGIO ALVAREZ, West
Sacramento Police Department
Chief DAN DRUMMOND, and DOES
1-30, inclusive,
Defendants.
20
21
22
----oo0oo---Plaintiff Rebecca Wilson, by and through her mother and
23
guardian ad litem Heatherlyn Bevard, brought this civil rights
24
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants City of West
25
Sacramento, former sworn West Sacramento Police Department
26
Officer Sergio Alvarez, and West Sacramento Police Department
27
Chief Dan Drummond based on Alvarez’s use of his position of
28
authority and public trust to molest, sexually assault, kidnap,
1
1
and terrorize Wilson.
2
arrested her in 2012 for a variety of offenses, handcuffed her,
3
took her behind a restaurant, and compelled her to engage in oral
4
sex.
5
get into his patrol car, took her to the same location, and
6
forced her to engage in oral copulation and sodomized her.
Plaintiff alleges defendant Alvarez
One week later, defendant allegedly ordered plaintiff to
7
In her First Amended Complaint, plaintiff asserts the
8
following claims: (1) a § 1983 claim against Alvarez for
9
violation of her Fourth Amendment right; (2) a § 1983 claim
10
against Alvarez for violation of her right to substantive due
11
process; (3) a § 1983 Monell claim against the City of West
12
Sacramento; (4) a § 1983 supervisor liability claim against Chief
13
Drummond based on his inadequate supervision; (5) a § 1983
14
supervisor liability claim against Chief Drummond based on his
15
failure to discipline; (6) a sexual battery claim against Alvarez
16
and the City of West Sacramento, Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5; (7) a
17
Bane Act claim against Alvarez and the City of West Sacramento;
18
(8) battery; and (9) assault.
19
No. 24).)
20
(First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) (Docket
On April 6, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to
21
settle the case for $450,000.00 after extensive negotiations and
22
a court ordered settlement conference.
23
Plaintiff will receive a total of $300,000.00--$4,124.00 will be
24
paid directly to her and $295,976.00 to Pacific Life & Annuity
25
Services, Inc., which will fund periodic payments of $3,000.00
26
each month beginning on March 1, 2016, guaranteed for eight years
27
and eleven months with the last guaranteed payment on January 1,
28
2025.
(Docket No. 50.)
Plaintiff’s attorney will receive one-third of the net
2
1
settlement amount, $150,000.00, which includes $1,917.00 in costs
2
and $148,083.00 in fees.
3
of the settlement pursuant to Local Rule 202(b)(2).
4
Approve Settlement (Docket No. 68).)
5
Plaintiff now moves for court approval
(Req. to
The court has a special duty, under Federal Rule of
6
Civil Procedure 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants
7
who are minors or incompetent.
8
(“The court must appoint a guardian ad litem--or issue another
9
appropriate order--to protect a minor or incompetent person who
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2)
10
is unrepresented in an action.”).
11
claim by or against a minor or incompetent person may be settled
12
or compromised absent an order by the court approving the
13
settlement or compromise.
14
moving for approval of the settlement must provide the court
15
“such . . . information as may be required to enable the Court to
16
determine the fairness of the settlement or compromise.”
17
202(b)(2).
18
incompetent person’s claims, federal courts are generally guided
19
by state law.
20
01684 LJO JLT, 2011 WL 127114, at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2011);
21
see also Cal. Prob. Code §§ 2504, 3600–12; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
22
372; Cal. R. of Ct. 3.1384(a), 7.950, 7.951, 7.952.
23
Under Local Rule 202(b), no
E.D. Cal. Local R. 202(b).
The party
Id.
In considering the fairness of a compromise of an
See, e.g., Beaty v. City of Fresno, Civ. No. 1:09-
The request for approval in this case adequately sets
24
forth the information required under Local Rule 202(b).
25
Moreover, after a lengthy discussion with the parties at the
26
January 11, 2016 hearing, the court is satisfied that the
27
settlement is fair and in the best interest of plaintiff.
28
plaintiff’s recovery is on the lower end of that received by
3
While
1
Alvarez’s other five victims, plaintiff’s case is factually
2
distinguishable and the court is confident that counsel for both
3
sides zealously engaged in settlement negotiations.
4
victims who received settlements in the range of $500,000-
5
$950,000, plaintiff was a long-time drug user, there was concern
6
she would not appear at trial, she did not fully respond to
7
written discovery requests, she had an admissible criminal
8
record, and she allegedly admitted she initiated the discussion
9
of sexual activity with defendant Alvarez and did not feel that a
Unlike the
10
crime was committed by defendant Alvarez.
11
County District Attorney did not list plaintiff as a victim in
12
the criminal case against defendant Alvarez.
13
some of the other victim-plaintiffs, plaintiff could not have
14
relied on defendant Alvarez’s conviction in the criminal case but
15
rather would have had to prove her civil case anew.
16
In addition, the Yolo
As a result, unlike
Lastly, it would be difficult if not impossible to
17
collect any judgment against Alvarez himself inasmuch as he
18
appears to be without assets and will be serving the rest of his
19
life in prison.
20
her Monell claim against the City of West Sacramento her
21
probability of success on this claim at trial was low, and it has
22
represented to the court that there is virtually no likelihood
23
that the City would pay any personal judgment against Alvarez.
24
Because plaintiff had scant evidence to support
The settlement agreement was also approved by
25
plaintiff’s guardian ad litem.
The approval of the guardian ad
26
litem is of particular importance in this case because the court
27
previously denied plaintiff’s request for approval of the
28
settlement due to plaintiff’s contestation of the appointment of
4
1
her guardian ad litem.
2
issue to the Magistrate Judge, who determined that the
3
appointment of the guardian ad litem needed to remain in effect
4
as plaintiff did not have the ability to assist counsel in her
5
case.
6
the guardian ad litem, that the court can approve the settlement.
(Docket No. 67.)
(Docket No. 55.)
The court referred the
It is only now, with the agreement of
7
Having reviewed plaintiff’s request for approval and
8
the proposed settlement, the court concludes that the proposed
9
settlement and plan for distribution are fair and reasonable.
10
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to
11
approve the settlement of her claims be, and the same hereby is,
12
GRANTED.
13
Dated:
January 14, 2016
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?