Sykes, et al. v. Shea, et al.

Filing 62

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 05/22/18 GRANTING 61 Motion to Approve Minor's Compromise. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

TYESHINA SYKES, an individual;
and J.S., by and through her
guardian ad litem JOHNNY NASH,
in individual,

14
15
16
17
18

Civ. No. 2:16-2851

WBS GGH

ORDER RE: MOTION TO APPROVE
MINOR’S COMPROMISE

Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD JAMES SHEA, in
individual; KUNKEL TRUCK LINES,
INC., a South Dakota
Corporation; and DOES 1-30,
Defendants.

19
20

----oo0oo----

21

Tyeshina Sykes (“Sykes”) initiated this action on

22
23

behalf of herself and J.S., a minor, against defendants Donald

24

James Shea (“Shea”) and Kunkel Trucking, Inc. (“Kunkel”) alleging

25

negligence based personal injury claims related to a motor

26

vehicle collision involving a truck driven by Shea and owned by

27

Kunkel.

28

Presently before the court is J.S.’s petition for approval of

Johnny Nash was appointed as guardian ad litem for J.S.

1

1
2

minor’s compromise. (Docket No. 61.)
Under Eastern District of California’s Local Rules, the

3

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

E.D.

4

Cal. L.R. 202(b).

5

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

6

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

7

settlement or compromise.”

8

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

9

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

The party moving for approval of the

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

10

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

11

distributed to each minor plaintiff in the proposed settlement is

12

fair and reasonable”).

13

In Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit specifically instructed

14

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

15

question whether the net amount distributed to [a] minor

16

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

17

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

18

in similar cases.”

19

court expressly limited its holding to a minor’s federal claims,

20

638 F.3d at 1179 n.2, district courts have also applied this rule

21

in the context of a minor’s state law claims.

22

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

23

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

24

638 F.3d at 1181.

Although the Robidoux

See, e.g., Frary

The Local Rules require that in actions in which the

25

minor is represented by an appointed representative pursuant to

26

state law, the settlement must first be approved by the state

27

court having jurisdiction over the personal representative.

28

Cal. Local R. 202(b)(1).

Here, the court notes that the
2

E.D.

1

Settlement Agreement at issue was first approved by the Honorable

2

Judge Russell L. Hom of the Sacramento Superior Court.

3

for Approval (Docket No. 61) at 2.)

4

same Settlement Agreement under two different standards strikes

5

this court as both unfair and likely to result in incongruous

6

results.

7

WBS, 2013 WL 1705033, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2013).

8

Additionally, defendants did not submit an opposition at the

9

hearing before the Sacramento Superior Court, nor have they

10

(See Mot.

To require evaluation of the

Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Cassie, Civ. No. 2:12-1570

opposed this Motion.

11

The settlement will result in the payment of $87,500 to

12

J.S.

13

settlement as payment for their services.

14

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

15

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

16

cases involving minors.”

17

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

18

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

19

total settlement allocated to attorney’s fees in this case is

20

reasonable under the circumstances.

21

J.S.’ attorneys intend to take 25%, or $21,875.00, of J.S.’
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

22

that the settlement is fair and reasonable and in the best

23

interests of the minor child.

24

also Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1179.

25

approve the settlement of J.S.’ claims against defendants and

26

will grant the petition for approval of minor’s compromise.

27
28

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

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to
Approve Minor’s Compromise (Docket No. 61) be, and the same
3

1

hereby is, GRANTED.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

3

1.

4

The gross amount or value of the settlement or

judgment in favor of plaintiff J.S. is $87,500.00

5

2.

Fees and expenses shall be paid by one or more

6

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

7

guardian ad litem Johnny Nash and plaintiffs’ attorney, if any,

8

or directly to third parties entitled to receive payment

9

identified in this order for the following items of expenses or

10

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

11

proceeds of the settlement or judgment:

12
13

(a)

Attorney’s fees in the total amount of

$21,875.00 payable to Banafsheh, Danesh, and Javid, P.C.;

14

(b)

Reimbursement in the amount of $24,275.90 for

15

necessary costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter

16

payable to Banafsheh, Danesh, and Javid, P.C.;

17

(c)

Medical, hospital, ambulance, nursing and

18

other expenses in the amount of $565.98 payable to Department of

19

Health Care Services;

20

(d)

Medical, hospital, ambulance, nursing and

21

other expenses in the amount of $1,791.00 payable to NCO

22

Financial Services;

23

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

24

$38,993.02 payable to Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc. to

25

fund a structured settlement annuity and to fund period payments.

26

Dated:

May 22, 2018

27
28
4