J.M. et al v. Pleasant Ridge Union School District et al

Filing 63

AMENDED ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/14/2018 APPROVING Minor's Compromise. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

J.M., a minor, by and through
her Guardian ad Litem, Nancy
Morin-Teal,
Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18

Civ. No. 2:16-897

WBS CKD

AMENDED ORDER APPROVING
MINOR’S COMPROMISE1

v.
PLEASANT RIDGE UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT, MAGNOLIA INTERMEDIATE
SCHOOL, ALLIANCE REDWOODS
OUTDOOR RECREATION, COUNTY OF
NEVADA, and DOES 1 to 50,
Defendants.

19
20

----oo0oo----

21

Plaintiffs J.M., a minor, by and through her guardian

22
23

ad litem, Nancy Morin-Teal, brought this action against

24

defendants Pleasant Ridge Union School District, Alliance

25
26
27
28

This order amends and supersedes the court’s prior
order approving a prior petition seeking approval of minor’s
compromise, Docket No. 61, and is issued in response to the
Amended Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise, Docket No.
62.
1
1

1

Redwoods Outdoor Recreation, County of Nevada,2 and Does 1 to 50,

2

alleging defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act and related

3

state law claims arising out of J.M’s injuries sustained while

4

attending a school field trip.

5

Nancy Morin-Teal’s amended petition for approval of minor’s

6

compromise. (Docket No. 62.)

7

Presently before the court is

Under Eastern District of California’s Local Rules, the

8

court must approve the settlement of the claims of a minor.

9

Cal. L.R. 202(b).

E.D.

The party moving for approval of the

10

settlement must provide the court “such . . . information as may

11

be required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the

12

settlement or compromise.”

13

Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011)

14

(district court has a duty “to safeguard the interests of minor

15

plaintiffs” that requires it to “determine whether the net amount

16

distributed to each minor plaintiff in the proposed settlement is

17

fair and reasonable”).

18

Id. at L.R. 202(b)(2); see also

In Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit specifically instructed

19

district courts to “limit the scope of their review to the

20

question whether the net amount distributed to [a] minor

21

plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of

22

the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery

23

in similar cases.”

24

its holding to a minor’s federal claims, Robidoux, 638 F.3d at

25

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed defendants County of
Nevada on October 10, 2016 (Docket No. 23) and Alliance Redwoods
Outdoor Recreation on January 31, 2017 (Docket No. 37). Pleasant
Ridge Union School District is the only remaining defendant in
this action.

26
27

Although the Robidoux court expressly limited

2

28
2

1

1179 n.2, 1181-82, district courts have also applied this rule in

2

the context of a minor’s state law claims.

3

County of Marin, Civ. No. 12-3928-MEJ, 2015 WL 575818, at *2

4

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2015).

5

See, e.g., Frary v.

This court is familiar with the allegations in this

6

case, including the undisputed medical attention provided to the

7

minor at Sutter Health, as well as defendant Pleasant Ridge Union

8

School District’s denial of liability for all claims asserted

9

against it.

In light of the evidence supporting a finding of no

10

liability, it could not be certain that plaintiffs would recover

11

even the settlement sum of $10,000 if the case were to proceed to

12

trial, although plaintiffs have produced contrary evidence

13

supporting their position.

14

settlement has been given to all parties.

15

Additionally, proper notice of the

The settlement will result in the payment of $2,500 in

16

attorney’s fees to plaintiffs’ counsel.

17

practice in the Eastern District of California to consider 25% of

18

the recovery as the benchmark for attorney’s fees in contingency

19

cases involving minors.”

20

Am., Civ. No. 1:15-1889-DAD-JLT, 2016 WL 3538345, at *3 (E.D.

21

Cal. June 29, 2016) (compiling cases).

22

total settlement allocated to attorney’s fees, which is 25%, is

23

reasonable under the circumstances.

24

It “has been the

See Chance v. Prudential Ins. Co. of

Thus, the portion of the

Based on all of these considerations, the court finds

25

that the settlement is fair and reasonable and in the best

26

interests of the minor child.

27

also Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1179.

28

approve the settlement of plaintiffs’ claims against defendant

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b); see
Accordingly, the court will

3

1

Pleasant Ridge Union School District and will grant Nancy Morin-

2

Teal’s petition for approval of minor’s compromise.

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Nancy Morin-Teal’s

4

petition for approval of minor’s compromise (Docket No. 58) be,

5

and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

7

1.

8

The gross amount or value of the settlement or

judgment in favor of plaintiff J.M. is $10,000.

9

2.

Fees and expenses shall be paid by one or more

10

checks or drafts, drawn payable to the order of plaintiff’s

11

guardian ad litem Nancy Teal-Morin and plaintiffs’ attorney, if

12

any, or directly to third parties entitled to receive payment

13

identified in this order for the following items of expenses or

14

damages, which are hereby authorized to be paid out of the

15

proceeds of the settlement or judgment:

16
17

(a)

of $1,745.02 payable to Amerio Law Firm, P.C.

18
19

(b)

Attorney’s fees in the total amount of $2,500

payable to Amerio Law Firm, P.C.

20
21

Reimbursement for costs in the total amount

(c)

Medi-Cal lien in the total amount of $419.94

payable to the Department of Health Care Services.

22

(d) Payment to J.M. in the total amount of

23

$5,335.04 payable to J.M. and deposited in a FDIC insured bank

24

blocked account.

25

(e)

Plaintiffs’ counsel shall deposit Claimants’

26

proceeds into individual FDIC insured account held in the name of

27

the minor at TRI COUNTIES BANK, 3700 DOUGLAS BLVD, ROSEVILLE, CA

28

95661.
4

1

(f)

Said accounts shall be blocked, so that no

2

withdrawal of principal or interest can be made prior to said,

3

respective minor’s reaching the age of 18, unless a written order

4

is obtained from this Court.

5

to escheat.

6

(g)

The money on deposit is not subject

Upon the minor’s attaining the age of 18, her

7

respective account shall be unblocked without further order of

8

this Court.

9

majority on January 7, 2021.

10

J.M. is currently 15 years old and will reach age of

(h)

Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide each

11

minor’s bank or credit union with a copy of this Order, and

12

shall, within 30 days, file with the Court a declaration

13

verifying the opening of said blocked accounts.

14
15

Dated:

September 14, 2018

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5