Beecham et al v. Roseville City School District et al

Filing 242

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/12/2018 GRANTING 231 , 232 and 234 motions to approve the settlement agreements and establish special needs trusts as to each minor plaintiff. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DUANE BEECHAM, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

v.

No. 2:15-cv-01022-KJM-EFB

ORDER

ROSEVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Students within the Roseville City School District (“RCSD”) allege they were

19

physically, verbally and emotionally abused by their teacher, Theresa Van Wagner. The students

20

are S.Y.B., through parents and guardians ad litem Duane and Kimberly Beecham; E.V., through

21

parents and guardians ad litem Oliver and Jennifer Vergara; and M.B, through guardian ad litem

22

Manoj Thottasseri. They brought this action against RCSD; Van Wagner; George Rooks, the

23

Preschool Program Coordinator; and Jerrold Jorgensen, the District Superintendent for Personnel,

24

for various federal and state law violations. After multiple attempts, the parties agreed to settle

25

their respective claims. The minor plaintiffs now move for court approval of the agreements.

26

ECF Nos. 231, 232, 234. The motions are unopposed. After hearing the motions, reviewing the

27

supplemental accounting filed following hearing, and for the reasons set forth below, the court

28

GRANTS the motions.
1

1

I.

BACKGROUND

2

S.Y.B., E.V. and M.B. (collectively “minor plaintiffs”), each diagnosed with

3

autism and possessing limited communication abilities, were students in a special needs class

4

taught by Van Wagner at Kaseberg Elementary School beginning September 1, 2013. First Am.

5

Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 30, ¶¶ 16, 18. The complaint alleges that under Van Wagner’s care,

6

the children were subject to severe physical, verbal and emotional abuse. Id. ¶ 19. The abuse

7

came in the form of hitting, slapping, pinching, pushing, yelling and pulling by the hair or ears.

8

Id. The minor plaintiffs were “specifically targeted” by Van Wagner and received the brunt of

9

her discipline. Id. ¶ 21.

10

The complaint asserts the abuse and humiliation were motivated by racial animus,

11

as Van Wagner was frequently overheard using derogatory remarks such as “refugee” and

12

“cholo,” and claiming one student “looks like he is from a third world country,” the parents of

13

another student dress him in “fancy clothes to try to make him look smarter,” and “[e]verybody

14

should own a Mexican.” Id. ¶¶ 24, 25. This behavior prompted Rooks to file a report with the

15

Roseville Police Department (“RPD”) on November 22, 2013, and on December 2, 2013 the RPD

16

began a formal investigation against Van Wagner. Id. ¶¶ 31, 32. As a result, she was charged

17

with three counts of violation of California Penal Code § 273, and ultimately pled no contest to

18

lesser charges. ECF Nos. 231 ¶ 14, 232 ¶ 14, 234 ¶ 15. Parents of the minor plaintiffs were

19

unaware of the abuse and the charges against Van Wagner until receiving a protective order on

20

September 4, 2014. FAC ¶ 36. Although initially unware of the abuse, the parents observed

21

behavioral and emotional changes in their children during their time as Van Wagner’s students.

22

See, e.g., id. ¶ 41 (“S.Y.B.’s parents began to sense something was wrong.”), ¶ 52 (“E.V. began

23

displaying unusually difficult behavior.”), ¶ 62 (“M.B.’s behavior underwent significant adverse

24

changes.”).

25

Plaintiffs initiated this action on May 12, 2015. ECF No. 1. On April 25, 2018,

26

the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ summary judgment motions, narrowing

27

the claims proceeding to trial. ECF No. 161. Claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violation of

28

their Fourth Amendment rights, survived as to all minor plaintiffs. Id. at 30. And the state law
2

1

claims for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and violations of the

2

Unruh Civil Rights Act, § 220 of the Education Code and Civil Code § 52.1 survived as to S.Y.B.

3

and E.V. Id. at 30–31. The parties settled their respective claims on October 23, 2018, and ask

4

the court to approve the agreements here. ECF Nos. 231, 232, 234.

5

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

6

District courts have a duty to protect the interests of minor or incompetent

7

litigants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2) (requiring a district to “appoint a guardian ad litem—or

8

issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented

9

in an action”). This special duty requires a district court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine

10

whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d

11

1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978));

12

see also E.D. Cal. L. R. 202(b) (“No claim by or against a minor or incompetent person may be

13

settled or compromised absent an order by the Court approving the settlement or compromise.”).

14

The Ninth Circuit instructs district courts to “limit the scope of their review to the

15

question whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and

16

reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar

17

cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82. This requires the court to “evaluate the fairness of each

18

minor plaintiff's net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value

19

designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no

20

special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 1182.

21

III.

22

DISCUSSION
A.

Fair and Reasonable

23

At the December 7, 2018 motion hearing, the court raised several questions

24

regarding discrepancies in the settlement calculations and asked plaintiffs’ counsel to file a

25

supplemental accounting to ensure accuracy of the net settlement amount calculations. Counsel

26

has filed that accounting. ECF No. 241. Upon review, the court is satisfied with the accuracy of

27

the calculations provided, and, to the extent there are discrepancies between the accounting and

28

the parties’ original motion papers, the court relies on counsel’s accounting here. The parties
3

1

agree to settle the claims of S.Y.B. and her parents for a total of $1,000,000. ECF No. 231 ¶ 36.

2

Ten percent of the settlement proceeds are to be divided evenly between the parents, 5 percent to

3

each, with S.Y.B. to receive the remaining $900,000 in gross proceeds. Id. Thus, S.Y.B.’s share

4

of the gross proceeds is 90 percent. Id. S.Y.B.’s proportional share of the litigation costs is

5

$75,509.23. Id. ¶ 38. Under the family’s retainer agreement, counsel, the Law Offices of Peter

6

Alfert, PC and the Law Offices of Todd Boley, are to receive 25 percent of the gross settlement

7

recovered before trial, which amounts to $250,000, with S.Y.B. to bear $225,000 of the cost

8

according to her 90 percent share. Id. ¶ 39. After fees and costs are reduced, S.Y.B.’s net

9

recovery will be $599,490.77.

10

Likewise, E.V. and his parents agree to settle on similar terms. Of the $1,000,000

11

gross settlement between them, E.V. will receive a 90 percent share, or $900,000. ECF No. 232

12

¶¶ 36–37. Attorney fees are charged at the rate of 25 percent against the family’s gross settlement

13

proceeds, and E.V.’s specific litigation expenses total $76,486.16. Id. ¶¶ 38–39. After reduction

14

of costs and fees, E.V.’s net recovery will total $598,510.84.

15

M.B.’s recovery is significantly less, reflecting M.B.’s proceeding on federal

16

claims only. The parties agree to settle M.B.’s claims for a gross total of $500,000. ECF No. 234

17

¶ 29. Litigation costs attributable to M.B. are $83,910.24, and attorney fees account for

18

25percent of the gross recovery. Id. ¶¶ 30–31. Thus, after fees and costs, M.B.’s net recovery

19

will be $251,089.76.

20

The court determines that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable to all

21

minor plaintiffs. This litigation has been long and arduous, and significant mental, emotional and

22

financial resources have been expended. The minor plaintiffs’ injuries are primarily mental and

23

emotional in nature. ECF Nos. 231 ¶ 59, 232 ¶ 59, 234 ¶ 48. Plaintiffs’ counsel retained a child

24

psychologist who diagnosed each minor as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and

25

recommends long term therapy, ongoing testing and retention of advocates to assist with special

26

education needs. Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel believe the settlement terms are fair and that sufficient

27

evidence has been produced to establish each minor suffered direct physical abuse by Van

28

Wagner. ECF Nos. 231 ¶ 60, 232 ¶ 60, 234 ¶ 49. Defendants, however, contend that Van
4

1

Wagner’s behavior was beyond the scope of her employment, and the extent of each minor’s

2

injuries could be challenged by expert testimony at trial. Id. Therefore, if this matter were to

3

proceed to trial, the minor plaintiffs would face two primary challenges: (1) proving RCSD’s

4

responsibility for Van Wagner’s actions, and (2) recovering from Van Wagner as she has

5

discharged her personal liability through bankruptcy. Id. In light of these obstacles, this

6

settlement presents a fair and reasonable compromise.

7

Although M.B.’s recovery is substantially less than S.Y.B. and E.V., it is

8

nonetheless a fair and reasonable settlement of his claims. As noted, only federal claims remain

9

as to M.B., as he did not assert any claims under state law; thus he faces a greater barrier to

10

recovery because the range of claims upon which he can recover is narrower than the other minor

11

plaintiffs. ECF No. 234 ¶ 50. Additionally, unlike S.Y.B. and E.V., M.B.’s recovery is not

12

subject to reduction based on independent claims by his parents. Id. Therefore, the recovery

13

disparity when comparing the net settlement amounts for M.B., S.Y.B. and E.V. does not affect

14

the equity of the settlement agreement.

15

Further, review of recovery in similar cases confirms the settlement is reasonable.

16

See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. For example, in Evans v. Antioch Unified School District, eight

17

special education students were subjected to physical and verbal abuse by their teacher, which

18

included hitting, pinching, pinning them to the ground and forcibly picking their noses. No. C

19

13-01476 LB (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2014); ECF Nos. 231 ¶ 61, 232 ¶ 61. The parents, also parties

20

to the litigation, became aware of the abuse only after the teacher was removed from the

21

classroom. The teacher was arrested on six felony counts of child abuse, and ultimately pled

22

guilty to one felony and two misdemeanor charges. ECF No. 231 ¶ 61, 232 ¶ 61. The net

23

recoveries of the minor plaintiffs ranged from $589,000 to $723,000. Id. Similarly, in Phelan v.

24

Brentwood Union School District, a special needs student suffered from physical and emotional

25

injuries at the hands of an abusive teacher. No. C 12-00465 LB, 2013 WL 323435, at *1 (N.D.

26

Cal. Jan. 28, 2013); ECF Nos. 231 ¶ 62, 232 ¶ 62, 234 ¶ 51. The teacher was charged and pled

27

nolo contendere to a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code § 273 for child endangerment. ECF

28

Nos. 231 ¶ 62, 232 ¶ 62, 234 ¶ 51. The minor’s net recovery was $570,000. 2013 WL 323435, at
5

1

*2. See also Hugunin v. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist., No. 2:15-cv-00939-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal. Mar.

2

23, 2018) (approving settlements ranging from $202,677.95 to $1,013,916.85 for students

3

subjected to teacher’s punching, kicking, sitting on and screaming at students). As the net

4

recovery of each minor plaintiff here falls within the recovery range of similar actions, the

5

settlement is fair and reasonable. The motions to approve the settlement agreement are

6

GRANTED.

7

B.

Creation of Special Needs Trusts

8

Minor plaintiffs ask the court to establish special needs trusts under 42 U.S.C.

9

§ 1396p(d)(4)(A) and California Probate Code § 3604(b). Under the Probate Code, a special

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

needs trust may be created if the court determines:
(1) That the minor or person with a disability has a disability that
substantially impairs the individual’s ability to provide for the
individual’s own care or custody and constitutes a substantial
handicap.
(2) That the minor or person with a disability is likely to have special
needs that will not be met without the trust.
(3) That money to be paid to the trust does not exceed the amount
that appears reasonably necessary to meet the special needs of the
minor or person with a disability.

17

Cal. Prob. Code § 3604(b). The minor plaintiffs satisfy these requirements. Each has been

18

diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. ECF Nos. 231 ¶ 47, 232 ¶ 47, 234 ¶ 37. Without the

19

trust, each will be ineligible for public assistance programs. ECF Nos. 231 ¶ 48, 232 ¶ 48, 234

20

¶ 38. And individual amounts paid to the respective trusts do not exceed the minors’ needs, as

21

plaintiffs’ experts reliably estimate the minors’ long-term care cannot be met by public assistance

22

alone. ECF Nos. 231 ¶ 49, 232 ¶ 49, 234 ¶ 39.

23

S.Y.B.’s net proceeds, $599,490.77, plus a 15 percent bond, will serve as the

24

corpus of the trust. ECF No. 231 ¶ 53; see also Cal. Prob. Code § 2320(a) (“Except as otherwise

25

provided by statute, every person appointed as a guardian . . . shall . . . give a bond approved by

26

the court.”); Cal. R. of Court 7.903(c)(5) (“trust instruments for trusts funded by court order must

27

. . . [r]equire persons . . . to post bond in the amount required under Probate Code section 2320 et

28

seq.”). The trust will be funded in the amount of $689,286.84. ECF No. 231 ¶ 53. Lindsay
6

1

Bowman will serve as trustee, and Placer County Superior Court will provide on-going oversight

2

of the trust. Id. ¶¶ 51, 52.

3

As to E.V., the trust will be funded in the amount of $688,286.84—E.V.’s net

4

proceeds plus a 15 percent bond. ECF No. 232 ¶ 53. E.V.’s parents, Oliver and Jennifer Vergara,

5

will serve as trustees, and Placer County Superior Court will provide on-going oversight of the

6

trust. Id. ¶ 51, 52. Likewise, M.B.’s trust will be funded by net settlement proceeds plus a 15

7

percent bond, for a total corpus of $334,753.22. ECF No. 234 ¶ 43. Manoj Kumar Thottasseri

8

and Seena Pattampurath will serve as trustees, and the Placer County Superior Court will oversee

9

the trust. Id. ¶ 41, 42.

10

As the parties have made a showing of good cause, the court GRANTS the minor

11

plaintiffs’ requests to establish special needs trusts.

12

IV.

CONCLUSION

13

The court finds the proposed settlements and special needs trusts serve the best

14

interests of each minor plaintiff. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motions to approve the

15

settlement agreements and establish special needs trusts as to each minor plaintiff, ECF Nos. 231,

16

232, 234, and ORDERS as follows:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

As to plaintiff S.Y.B.
1. Guardians ad litem Duane and Kimberly Beecham are directed to execute
the special needs trust for S.Y.B.
2. Lindsay Bowman shall serve as the Initial Trustee of the special needs trust
for S.Y.B. and shall post bond in the amount of $689,286.84 for the trust.
3. The venue for on-going oversight of the special needs trust shall lie with
Placer County Superior Court.

24

4. The sum of $599,490.77 shall be allocated to the special needs of S.Y.B.

25

5. Guardians ad litem Duane and Kimberly Beecham shall place S.Y.B.’s

26

portion of the settlement, $599,490.77, into S.Y.B.’s special needs trust,

27

and those funds shall not be considered an available resource for purposes

28

of federal and state public assistance benefits eligibility.
7

1

6. Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $3,000 shall be paid from the special

2

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

3

needs trust for S.Y.B.

4
5
6

As to plaintiff E.V.
1. Guardians ad litem Oliver and Jennifer Vergara shall execute the special
needs trust for E.V.

7

2. Oliver and Jennifer Vergara shall serve as the Initial Trustees for the

8

special needs trust for E.V. and shall post bond in the amount of

9

$688,286.84 for the trust.

10
11

3. Venue for on-going oversight of the special needs trust shall lie with the
Placer County Superior Court.

12

4. The sum of $598,510.84 shall be allocated to the special needs of E.V.

13

5. Guardians ad litem Oliver and Jennifer Vergara shall place E.V.’s portion

14

of the settlement, $598,510.84, into E.V.’s special needs trust, and those

15

funds shall not be considered an available resource for purposes of federal

16

and state public assistance benefits eligibility.

17

6. Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $3,000 shall be paid from the special

18

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

19

needs trust for E.V.

20
21
22
23

As to plaintiff M.B.
1. Guardian ad litem Manoj Thottasseri shall execute the special needs trust
for M.B.
2. Manoj Thottasseri and Seena Pattampurath shall serve as the Initial

24

Trustees of the special needs trust for M.B. and shall post bond in the

25

amount of $334,753.22 for the trust.

26
27
28

3. Venue for on-going oversight of the special needs trust shall lie with the
Placer County Superior Court.
4. The sum of $291,089.76 shall be allocated to the special needs of M.B.
8

1

5. Guardian ad litem Manoj Thottasseri shall place M.B.’s settlement,

2

$291,089.76, into M.B.’s special needs trust, and those funds shall not be

3

considered an available resource for purposes of federal and state public

4

assistance benefits eligibility.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 12, 2018.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9