Cotton et al v. City of Eureka, California et al
Filing
335
AMENDED ORDER re #333 Order on Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 12/5/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2012) Modified on 12/6/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7 SIEHNA M. COTTON, a minor, by and
Megan McClure, her guardian ad litem; and
8 MARTIN COTTON, SR., an individual,
Plaintiffs,
9
vs.
10
11 CITY OF EUREKA, CALIFORNIA, a
Case No: C 08-4386 SBA
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
JOINT MOTION TO VACATE
JUDGMENT AND APPROVING
APPLICATION FOR MINOR’S
COMPROMISE
Dkt. 327, 332
political subdivision of the State of California,
12 COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, CALIFORNIA,
a political subdivision of the State of
13 California, et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
16
The parties are presently before the Court on (1) the parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate
17
Judgment; and (2) Plaintiff’s Application for Approval of Minor Siehna M. Cotton’s
18
Compromise. Dkt. 327, 331. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection
19
with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS both requests. The
20
Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See
21
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
22
I.
BACKGROUND
23
Plaintiffs Siehna M. Cotton (“Siehna”) and Martin Cotton, Sr. (“Mr. Cotton”), filed
24
the instant survival and wrongful death action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 following the
25
death of their father and son, Martin Cotton II (“Decedent”). A jury trial commenced on
26
September 12, 2011, against the City of Eureka and police officers Justin Winkle, Adam
27
Laird and Gary Whitmer. On September 23, 2011, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs
28
and awarded $4,000,000 in compensatory damages to Siehna, $500,000 in compensatory
1
damages to Mr. Cotton, and imposed punitive damages against the individual officers in the
2
aggregate amount of $75,000. Dkt. 245. On the same day, the Court entered judgment in
3
favor of Plaintiffs in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Dkt. 246.
4
On March 27, 2012, Defendants filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. Dkt.
5
297. During the pendency of the appeal, however, the parties mediated their dispute and
6
reached a settlement of the entire case. The settlement will result in a $4,000,000 payment
7
to Siehna, and $500,000 to Martin Cotton, Sr. An order vacating the judgment is a
8
condition of the settlement. To that end, the parties have now jointly requested that the
9
Court vacate the judgment. Dkt. 327.1 Additionally, because Siehna is a minor, Plaintiffs
10
seek approval of her proposed settlement. Dkt. 331.
11
II.
DISCUSSION
12
A.
13
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) affords the district court discretion to vacate a
MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT
14
judgment “when the equities so demand[.]” Am. Games, Inc. v. Trade Prods., Inc., 142
15
F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1998); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) (permitting the court to vacate
16
a judgment “any other reason that justifies relief.”). A post-judgment settlement does not
17
ipso facto require the district court to vacate a judgment; “otherwise, any litigant
18
dissatisfied with a trial court’s findings would be able to have them wiped from the books.”
19
Bates v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 944 F.2d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotations and
20
citations omitted). Thus, where the parties seek to vacate a judgment based upon a
21
settlement, two equitable considerations should be addressed: “[1] the consequences and
22
attendant hardships of dismissal or refusal to dismiss and [2] the competing values of
23
finality of judgment and right to relitigation of unreviewed disputes.” Dilley v. Gunn, 64
24
F.3d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
25
26
1
In connection with said motion, the Ninth Circuit has granted Defendants’ motion
to dismiss the appeal without prejudice to reinstatement in the event the Court declines to
28 vacate the judgment. Dkt. 332.
27
-2-
1
Here, both of the concerns germane to a request to vacate a judgment militate in
2
favor of granting the parties’ joint request. First, if the settlement is not realized, the parties
3
will be compelled to proceed with the appeal, which carries with it inherent risks to both
4
sides. Both parties will face months or perhaps years of delay and uncertainty, incur
5
additional costs and face the prospect of having to retry some or all of the case at a future
6
date in the event the judgment is reversed. In contrast, no hardship is likely to result from
7
vacating the judgment, as the settlement grants Plaintiffs the same amount of compensatory
8
damages that was awarded under the verdict. As to the second consideration, the settlement
9
will finally resolve all disputes between the parties arising from the death of the Decedent
10
11
and, importantly, bring will closure for all involved.
While not every settlement warrants vacating a judgment reached following a jury
12
verdict, the Court finds that the unique circumstances of this case, which has entailed years
13
of difficult litigation, on balance, warrant granting the parties’ joint request to vacate the
14
judgment in order to facilitate the settlement. See Ahern v. Central Pac. Freight Lines, 846
15
F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The Ninth Circuit is firmly committed to the rule that the law
16
favors and encourages compromise settlements.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
17
Accordingly, the parties’ joint request to vacate the judgment is GRANTED.
18
B.
19
As part of the proposed settlement, Plaintiffs also seek judicial approval of proposed
APPLICATION FOR MINOR’S COMPROMISE
20
compromise of Siehna’s claims. In considering the fairness of a settlement of a minor’s
21
claim, federal courts generally are guided by state law. See Schwarzer, Tashima &
22
Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide, Federal Procedure Before Trial ¶ 15.138 at 15-48
23
(TRG 2012). California law “bestows broad power on the court to authorize payment from
24
the settlement—to say who and what will be paid from the minor’s money….” Goldberg v.
25
Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382 (1994). The Court’s role in approving a
26
minor’s compromise is to “assure that whatever is done is in the minor’s best interest” and
27
that “the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor’s injuries, care and treatment.”
28
Id. “[A] court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement
-3-
1
of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected … even if the
2
settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad
3
litem.” Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983).
4
Here, the settlement for Siehna, for all intents and purposes, mirrors the jury’s
5
verdict and the judgment entered in this action. See Kloeppel Decl. Ex. A (General Release
6
of All Claims § 2.0), Dkt. 328; Final Judgment, Dkt. 246; Jury Verdict, Dkt. 245. Thus,
7
based on the information presented in connection with the Application, coupled with the
8
Court’s familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this action, the Court is satisfied
9
that the proposed minor’s compromise is fair and reasonable and sufficiently protects her
10
interests. In addition, the Court finds that the proposed structure of the settlement protects
11
the interest of Siehna by ensuring that the settlement will remain in a blocked account
12
interest bearing account until she reaches majority. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ application for
13
approval of the minor’s compromise is GRANTED.
14
III.
CONCLUSION
15
For the reasons stated above,
16
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
17
1.
18
19
20
21
The Joint Motion to Vacate Judgment is GRANTED. The judgment entered
on September 23, 2011 (Dkt. 246) is vacated.
2.
Application for Approval of Minor Siehna M. Cotton’s Compromise is
GRANTED, subject to the following:
a.
The settlement of minor Siehna M. Cotton’s action against the
22
Defendants in the sum of $4,000,000.00 is hereby approved. Defendant City of
23
Eureka, through counsel, shall prepare and deliver drafts for the partial settlement
24
proceeds, no later than twenty (20) days from the date of this Order, payable as
25
follows:
26
i.
A draft for $998,103.00 shall be made payable to John Hancock
27
Assignment Company and $1,648,662.90 shall be made payable to BHG
28
Structured Settlement, Inc., as Assignees for the benefit of minor Siehna M.
-4-
1
Cotton. These funds shall be used to purchase two annuities in accord with
2
the Addendum (“Exhibit A”) to this Order which outlines the future periodic
3
payments;
4
ii.
The Assignees shall have the right to fund its liability to make
5
periodic payments to the minor plaintiff by purchasing an annuity policy from
6
John Hancock Life Insurance Company U.S.A. and Berkshire Hathaway Life
7
Insurance Company of Nebraska. Attached hereto as “Exhibit B” is a copy of
8
this rating information and a sample annuity policy. John Hancock Life
9
Insurance Company U.S.A. and Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance
10
Company of Nebraska will act as Guarantors of the Assignees.
11
12
iii.
The Court approves Megan McClure to be named as primary
beneficiary on Siehna’s M. Cotton’s structured settlement.
13
iv.
A draft for $1,353,234.10 shall be made payable to the Law
14
Offices of Dale K. Galipo and Law Offices of Vicki I. Sarmiento,
15
representing the minor’s share of attorneys’ fees and costs.
16
b.
The Court directs the Assignees to purchase the annuity contracts on
17
behalf of Siehna M. Cotton. The funds shall be disbursed in accord with the terms
18
of the Annuities as outlined in the Addendum attached to this Order as “Exhibit A.”
19
John Hancock Life Insurance Company U.S.A. and Berkshire Hathaway Life
20
Insurance Company of Nebraska shall act as Guarantors of the Assignees.
21
Disbursement drafts will be made payable and issued directly to Siehna M. Cotton
22
upon reaching the age of maturity according to the payment schedule.
23
24
c.
Absent a further order of this Court, there will be no distributions to
any person other than specified by this Order.
25
26
27
28
-5-
1
3.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
This Order terminates Docket 327 and 332.
Dated: December 5, 2012
______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
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
-6-
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page4 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page5 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page6 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page7 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page8 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page9 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page10 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page11 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page12 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page13 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page14 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page15 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page16 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page17 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page18 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page19 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page20 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page21 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page22 of 23
Case4:08-cv-04386-SBA Document331-1 Filed10/25/12 Page23 of 23
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?