Hashitaka et al v. Caraway et al

Filing 36

ORDER APPROVING COMPROMISE OF MINOR'S CLAIM. Signed by Judge James Donato on 8/26/2015. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MOKU HASHITAKA, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-04572-JD

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER APPROVING COMPROMISE
OF MINOR’S CLAIM

9
10

BRENDAN CARAWAY, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 33, 35

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

This is a civil rights action arising out of a police stop of a man and his infant son, Moku

13

Hashitaka. Dkt. No. 1. At two years old, Moku is a minor, and the Court consequently appointed

14

his mother as a guardian ad litem for him pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil

15

Procedure. Dkt. Nos. 7, 33.

16

The parties have informed the Court that they have reached a settlement of this matter, and

17

they jointly request that the Court approve the compromise of the minor’s claim. Dkt. No. 33.

18

Plaintiff has also submitted a supplemental memorandum providing additional background on the

19

proposed settlement in support of the stipulated request for approval. Dkt. No. 35.

20

The Court has a “special duty” in the context of proposed settlements like these to

21

“conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interest of” the minor

22

plaintiff. Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). In making that inquiry,

23

the Court “must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a

24

minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected, even if the settlement has

25

been recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem.” Salmeron v. United

26

States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983).

27
28

In Robidoux, our Circuit explained the outer boundaries of the scope of review the district
court is to undertake in situations like these: the court is to “focus[] on the net recovery of the

1

minor plaintiffs under the proposed agreement,” taking care to “limit the scope of [its] review to

2

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

3

reasonable . . . .” 638 F.3d at 1181-82. “Most importantly, the district court should evaluate the

4

fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total

5

settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel -- whose interests the

6

district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id.

7

Here, the parties have explained that the agreed settlement provides for $1,000 to be paid
to the minor plaintiff, and that no attorney’s fees or costs will be deducted from that amount. Dkt.

9

No. 33. Plaintiffs’ counsel further submits that, although plaintiff “has been unable to find another

10

settlement for an infant who was separated from his parents for several hours,” plaintiff has found

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

another case in which a five-year-old child “who witnessed officers barge in to his family’s home

12

and arrest his father, but who was not separated from his mother” received $2,000 as a settlement

13

award. Dkt. No. 35.

14

Having considered the parties’ submissions and the documents on file, the Court finds the

15

proposed compromise of the minor’s claim in this case to be “fair and reasonable, in light of the

16

facts of the case, [plaintiff’s] specific claim[s], and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d

17

at 1182. The proposed compromise of the minor’s claim consequently is approved. The Court,

18

however, declines to make the additional orders requested by the parties that go to the manner in

19

which the funds for the minor plaintiff should be deposited and when they may be disbursed to

20

him. Dkt. No. 33 (proposed order). The parties should pursue that additional relief, if they wish,

21

in state court.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26, 2015

24
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2