Lopez v. Contra Costa Regional Medical Center et al

Filing 97

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 94 Ex Parte Application to Approve Settlement of Minor Plaintiffs' Claims. The court directs the parties to file, by March 6, 2015, either: (1) a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a); or (2) a joint status update explaining why a stipulated dismissal has not yet been filed. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
JESUS LOPEZ, for himself and as Guardian
ad Litem for EDGAR LOPEZ,
ALEXANDRA LOPEZ, and GRETSANDY
LOPEZ, his minor children,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER APPROVING COMPROMISE
OF MINORS’ CLAIMS

Plaintiffs,

13

[ECF No. 94]

v.

14
15

Case No. 12-cv-03726-LB

CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, and COUNTY OF CONTRA
COSTA

16

Defendants.

17

INTRODUCTION

18
19

Plaintiff Jesus Lopez, for himself and as guardian ad litem for his three minor children,

20

plaintiffs Edgar, Alexandra, and Gretsandy Lopez, sued the defendants for medical malpractice

21

following the death of Mr. Lopez‘s wife from complications during childbirth. (2nd Am. Compl. –

22

ECF No. 21.)1 The parties have settled their dispute. (The essential terms of that settlement are

23

discussed below; the full terms appear at ECF No. 94 at 6-8.) Mr. Lopez now asks the court to

24

approve the settlement of the minor Lopez children‘s claims. (ECF No. 94.) The defendants do not

25

oppose Mr. Lopez‘s request. (ECF No. 96.) For the reasons stated below, the court grants Mr.

26

Lopez‘s petition and approves the settlement. The court finds this matter suitable for determination

27
1

28

Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (―ECF‖); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
ORDER – 12-3726 LB

1

without oral argument and vacates the hearing that is currently set for January 22, 2015. See Civ.

2

L.R. 7-1(b).
LEGAL STANDARD

3

―District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to

4
5

safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.‖ Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181

6

(9th Cir. 2011). ―Rule 17(c) provides, in relevant part, that a district court ‗must appoint a

7

guardian ad litem — or issue another appropriate order — to protect a minor or incompetent

8

person who is unrepresented in an action.‘‖ Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). ―In the context of

9

proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court
to ‗conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

minor.‘‖ Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27

1978)).
The Ninth Circuit has also made clear that, in cases involving the settlement of federal
claims, district courts should ―limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net
amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the
facts of the case, the minor‘s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases,‖ and should ―evaluate
the fairness of each minor plaintiff‘s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total
settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs‘ counsel — whose interests the
district court has no special duty to safeguard.‖ Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181-82 (citing Dacanay,
573 F.2d at 1078).
The Robidoux court did not express a view on the proper approach for federal courts to
take when sitting in diversity and considering approval of a minor‘s state-law claims. Robidoux,
638 F.3d at 1179 n. 2. Following summary-judgment practice, the only claims remaining in this
case are under California state law. (See ECF No. 59.) The court nevertheless looks to the Ninth
Circuit‘s guidance in Robidoux in assessing the present settlement. Like federal law, California
law also requires its courts to approve the settlement of minors‘ claims. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
§ 372; Cal. Prob. Code § 3600.

28
ORDER – 12-3726 LB

2

ANALYSIS

1
2

The minor Lopez plaintiffs, through their father as guardian ad litem, have agreed to settle

3

their claims. The present value of the gross settlement with all plaintiffs is $375,000. (ECF No. 94

4

at 2.) Under the settlement, the Lopez children will receive the following net amounts: (1) Edgar

5

Lopez, the eldest child, will receive $36,666.66; (2) Alexandra Lopez will receive $26,666.66; and

6

(3) Gretsandy Lopez will receive $26,666.66. (ECF No. 95 at 1-2.) These amounts account for

7

litigation costs; the settlement also provides for attorney‘s fees (as constrained by California‘s

8

Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act). (See ECF No. 94 at 2-4.) The settlement will be

9

structured as periodic payments from a single-premium deferred annuity. (Id. at 1.) California

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

allows structured settlements of this type for minors‘ claims. See Cal. Prob. Code § 3602.
After reviewing the papers submitted, the court finds the amounts and other features of the

12

settlement to be fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of this case, the minor Lopez plaintiffs‘

13

claims, and recoveries in similar cases. The court also finds that the settlement is in the Lopez

14

children‘s best interests. The court accordingly grants Mr. Lopez‘s petition and approves the

15

settlement.
CONCLUSION

16
17
18

The petition to approve the settlement is granted. The approved settlement is ordered on
the following terms:

19

1. The compromise of Edgar Lopez‘s claim in the amount of $36,666.66 is approved. The

20

defendants will pay Edgar Lopez, through his assignee, Pacific Life & Annuity Services,

21

$6,500.00 on January 14, 2019, $6,500.00 on January 14, 2020, $8,632.30 on January 14,

22

2021 and $8,632.30 on January 14, 2022. Attorney‘s fees for work attributable to Edgar‘s

23

claims in the amount of $9,166.66 payable to Becker & Becker are approved. Becker &

24

Becker is authorized to disburse these fees from the client‘s trust account held at the Wells

25

Fargo Bank.

26

2. The compromise of Alexandra Lopez‘s claim in the amount of $26,666.66 is approved.

27

The defendants will pay Alexandra Lopez, through her assignee, Pacific Life & Annuity

28

Services, $6,500.00 on August 28, 2026, $6,500.00 on August 28, 2027, $8,542.77 on
ORDER – 12-3726 LB

3

1

August 28, 2028 and $8,542.77 on August 28, 2029. Attorney‘s fees for work attributable

2

to Alexandra‘s claims in the amount of $6,666.66 payable to Becker & Becker are

3

approved. Becker & Becker is authorized to disburse these fees from the client‘s trust

4

account held at the Wells Fargo Bank.

5

3. The compromise of Gretsandy Lopez‘s claim in the amount of $26,666.66 is approved.

6

The defendant will pay to Gretsandy Lopez, through its assignee, Pacific Life & Annuity

7

Services, $6,500.00 on August 29, 2029, $6,500.00 on August 29, 2030, $10,180,41 on

8

August 28, 2031 and $10,180,41 on August 28, 2032. Attorney‘s fees for work attributable

9

to Gretsandy‘s claims in the amount of $6,666.66 payable to Becker & Becker are
approved. Becker & Becker is authorized to disburse these fees from the client‘s trust

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

account held at the Wells Fargo Bank.

12

The court directs the parties to file, by March 6, 2015, either: (1) a stipulated dismissal under

13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a); or (2) a joint status update explaining why a stipulated

14

dismissal has not yet been filed.

15

This disposes of ECF No. 94.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: January 9, 2015
______________________________________
Laurel Beeler
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – 12-3726 LB

4