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)

Download PDF
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?