Landeros et al v. Schafer et al

Filing 173

AMENDED ORDER (amending 172 ) signed by Senior District Judge William B. Shubb on 1/6/2025 GRANTING 170 Motion to Approve Minors' Compromise. (Deputy Clerk KKS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

JENNIFER LANDEROS, individually
and as successor in interest to
DANIEL LANDEROS, Deceased; DEJA
LANDEROS, individually and as
successor in interest to DANIEL
LANDEROS, Deceased; B.M.L.,
individually and as successor in
interest to DANIEL LANDEROS,
Deceased, by and through
JENNIFER LANDEROS, as Guardian
ad Litem; J.J.L., individually
and as successor in interest to
DANIEL LANDEROS, Deceased, by
and through JENNIFER LANDEROS,
as Guardian ad Litem; D.F.L.,
individually and as successor in
interest to DANIEL LANDEROS,
Deceased, by and through
JENNIFER LANDEROS, as Guardian
ad Litem; and T.D.L.,
individually and as successor in
interest to DANIEL LANDEROS,
Deceased, by and through
JENNIFER LANDEROS, as Guardian
ad Litem,

27
28

AMENDED ORDER APPROVING
MINORS’ COMPROMISE

Plaintiffs,

25
26

No. 2:17-cv-02598 WBS CKD

v.
SAMUEL SCHAFER; STEVEN HOLSTAD;
JUSTIN PARKER; PATRICK SCOTT;
JEREMY BANKS; and CITY OF ELK
1

1
2

GROVE,
Defendants.

3
----oo0oo----

4
5

Plaintiffs brought this suit against defendants as a

6

result of the death of their husband and father Daniel Landeros

7

in November 2016 during an encounter with City of Elk Grove

8

police officers.

9

total of $1,700,000, minors J.J.L. and D.F.L., by and through

10

their guardian ad litem and mother Jennifer Landeros, moved for

11

approval of the compromise of their claims.

12

Plaintiffs have essentially agreed to split the settlement amount

13

equally, with each plaintiff receiving $283,333.33 or $283,333.34

14

before deduction of attorney’s fees and costs.

15

After the parties agreed to a settlement for a

(Docket No. 170.)

Under the Eastern District of California’s Local Rules,

16

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

17

E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b).

18

settlement must provide the court “information as may be required

19

to enable the [c]ourt to determine the fairness of the settlement

20

or compromise[.]”

21

Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that

22

district courts have a duty “to safeguard the interests of minor

23

plaintiffs” that requires them to “determine whether the net

24

amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the proposed

25

settlement is fair and reasonable[.]”).

26

“limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net

27

amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is

28

fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the

The party moving for approval of the

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

2

District courts must

1

minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.”

2

1181-82.

3

Id. at

The court, after considering all of the relevant

4

submissions, and based on the court’s familiarity with the facts

5

of the case after presiding over the jury trial in 2022, finds

6

that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest

7

of minors J.J.L. and D.F.L..

8

settlement is for a substantial sum of $283,333.33 or $283,333.34

9

for each plaintiff, including the two minors, for a total of $1.7

10

million, and it is not certain that plaintiffs would recover that

11

amount against defendants if the case proceeded to trial again,

12

especially considering that the jury found no liability in the

13

first trial.

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b).

The

14

Given the fact that plaintiffs’ counsel also tried this

15

case to a jury and then successfully appealed the denial of their

16

motion for new trial, the court also finds that plaintiffs’

17

counsel’s 40% contingency fee is remarkably reasonable under the

18

circumstances.

19

1:10–cv–00233 LJO MJS, 2012 WL 2995666, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 23,

20

2012) (while 25% is the “benchmark” for attorney’s fees in

21

contingency cases on behalf of minors, that percentage may be

22

increased based on unusual complexity or unusual expenditure of

23

time) (citations omitted).

24

motion.1

25

See, e.g., McCue v. S. Fork Union Sch. Dist., No.

Accordingly, the court will grant the

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for approval of

26
27
28

After deducting the 40% contingency fee and each
plaintiff’s pro rata share of costs, J.J.L. and D.F.L. will each
receive a net settlement amount of $157,685.66.
3
1

1

minors’ compromise filed by plaintiffs J.J.L. and D.F.L., by and

2

through their guardian ad litem Jennifer Landeros (Docket No.

3

170) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

4

follows:

5

1.

The court orders as

The settlement of minor plaintiff J.J.L.’s action

6

against the defendants in the amount of $283,333.34 is hereby

7

approved.

8

2.

The settlement of minor plaintiff D.F.L.’s action

9

against the defendants in the amount of $283,333.34 is hereby

10

approved.

11

2.

Within 30 days of the date of this Order, defendant

12

City of Elk Grove, through counsel, shall prepare and deliver the

13

drafts for the gross settlement proceeds in the amount of

14

$1,700,000 payable as follows:

15

a.

A draft for $1,384,628.68 shall be made payable to

16

the “Law Offices of Dale K. Galipo, Client Trust Account,” and

17

sent to the Law Offices of Dale K. Galipo.

18

used to satisfy (1) the attorneys’ fees owed to the Law Offices

19

of Dale K. Galipo and the Law Office of Stewart Katz in the

20

amount of $113,333.34 by plaintiff J.J.L.; (2) the pro rata costs

21

owed to plaintiff J.J.L.’s attorneys in the amount of $12,314.34;

22

(3) the attorneys’ fees owed to the Law Offices of Dale K. Galipo

23

and the Law Office of Stewart Katz in the amount of $113,333.34

24

by plaintiff D.F.L.; (4) the pro rata costs owed to plaintiff

25

D.F.L.’s attorneys in the amount of $12,314.34; (5) the total

26

gross settlement amount to plaintiff Tristan Landeros in the

27

amount of $283,333.33; (6) the total gross settlement amount to

28

plaintiff Breanna Landeros in the amount of $283,333.33; (7) the
4

These funds shall be

1

total gross settlement amount to plaintiff Deja Landeros in the

2

amount of $283,333.33; and (8) the total gross settlement amount

3

to plaintiff Jennifer Landeros in the amount of $283,333.33.

4

b.

Defendant City of Elk Grove will purchase a

5

structured annuity for the minor plaintiff J.J.L. in the amount

6

of $157,685.66 from MetLife Assignment Company, Inc. (hereinafter

7

referred to as “Assignee 1”), which will provide periodic

8

payments to be made by Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company

9

(hereinafter referred to as “Annuity Carrier”) rated A+ Superior

10

by A.M. Best Company as set forth in “Exhibit A” to the

11

Declaration of Hang D. Le and in the table below.

12

amount that J.J.L. will receive after the final payment is made

13

directly to him from the annuity is $235,700.

14

c.

The total

Defendant City of Elk Grove will purchase a

15

structured annuity for the minor plaintiff D.F.L. in the amount

16

of $157,685.66 from MetLife Assignment Company, Inc. (hereinafter

17

referred to as “Assignee 2”), which will provide periodic

18

payments to be made by Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company

19

(hereinafter referred to as “Annuity Carrier”) rated A+ Superior

20

by A.M. Best Company as set forth in “Exhibit B” to the

21

Declaration of Hang D. Le and in the table below.

22

amount that D.F.L. will receive after the final payment is made

23

directly to him from the annuity is $213,600.

24

d.

The total

Defendant City of Elk Grove will arrange to have

25

the annuity premium checks, made payable to MetLife Assignment

26

Company, Inc., delivered directly to the annuity broker, Baldwin

27

Settlements.

28

5.

Annuity Carrier shall provide periodic payments in
5

1

accordance with “Exhibit A” and “Exhibit B” to the Declaration of

2

Hang D. Le and as set forth in the table below.

3

6.

All sums and periodic payments set forth in the two

4

“Periodic Payments” tables below constitute damages on account of

5

personal physical injuries or physical illness, arising from an

6

occurrence, within the meaning of Section 104(a)(2) of the

7

Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

8

7.

Disbursement drafts will be made payable and will begin

9

being issued directly to plaintiff J.J.L. upon reaching the age

10

of maturity according to the payment schedule below.

11
Periodic Payments payable to J.J.L.

12

$30,000

Lump Sum Payment on 9/03/2028

14

$40,000

Lump Sum Payment on 9/03/2031

15

$50,000

Lump Sum Payment on 9/03/2034

$115,700

Lump Sum Payment on 9/03/2037

13

16
17
18
19

8.

Disbursement drafts will be made payable and will begin

20

being issued directly to Plaintiff D.F.L. upon reaching the age

21

of maturity according to the payment schedule below.

22
23
24
25
26

Periodic Payments payable to D.F.L.
$30,000

Lump Sum Payment on 10/23/2026

$40,000

Lump Sum Payment on 10/23/2029

$50,000

Lump Sum Payment on 10/23/2032

27
28
6

1

$93,600

Lump Sum Payment on 10/23/2035

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9.

Defendant City of Elk Grove will make a “qualified

assignment” within the meaning of Section 130(c), of the Internal
Revenue code of 1986, as amended, to Assignees 1 and 2, of the
Defendant City of Elk Grove’s liability to make the periodic
payments as described in the above tables and in “Exhibit A” and
“Exhibit B” to the Declaration of Hang D. Le filed concurrently
herewith.

Such assignment, if made, shall be accepted by the

Plaintiffs without right of rejection and shall completely
release and discharge City of Elk Grove from such obligations
hereunder as are assigned to Assignee 1 and Assignee 2. This
includes that City of Elk Grove shall execute a Qualified
Assignment document.
10.

Defendant City of Elk Grove and/or Assignees 1 and 2

shall have the right to fund its liability to make periodic
payments by purchasing a “qualified funding asset,” within the
meaning of Section 130(d) of the Code, in the form of an annuity
policy from the Annuity Carrier.
11.

Assignees 1 and 2 shall be the owners of the annuity

policy or policies and shall have all rights of ownership.
12.

Assignees 1 and 2 will have the Annuity Carrier mail

payments directly to the Plaintiffs J.J.L. and D.F.L.,
respectively, as set forth above.

Jennifer Landeros (until

Plaintiffs J.J.L. and D.F.L. reach the age of the majority) and
then Plaintiffs J.J.L. and D.F.L. shall be responsible for
maintaining the currency of the proper mailing address and
7

1

mortality information to each Assignee respectively.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 6, 2025

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8