Doe et al v. Gill et al

Filing 59

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/23/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

JANE DOE, a minor, by and through
her guardian ad litem, WILFRED
SCOTT;

6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12

RYAN GILL; ANTHONY MORGAN; and
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO,
Defendants.
________________________________/
JUDY BROWN; and IMAREE CROSS;

No. C 11-5009 CW

Plaintiffs,

13
14

ORDER DIRECTING
PETITIONER TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE

v.

10
11

No. C 11-4759 CW

v.

15

RYAN GILL; ANTHONY MORGAN; and
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO,

16

Defendants.

17

________________________________/

18

ERICKA WHITMEYER

19
20
21
22
23
24

No. C 11-5083 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
RYAN GILL; ANTHONY MORGAN; and
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO,
Defendants.
________________________________/
Petitioner Wilfred Scott, as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff

25
Jane Doe, a minor, requests approval of a compromise of Doe’s
26
claims against Defendants Ryan Gill, Anthony Morgan and the City
27
of San Leandro.
28

1

Through her guardian ad litem, Scott, Doe initiated this

2

lawsuit on September 23, 2011.

3

that, on December 29, 2010, her mother, Gwendolyn Killings, was

4

shot and killed by Defendants Gill and Morgan, police officers

5

employed by Defendant City of San Leandro.

6

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth

7

Amendment and a survival action against Defendants Gill and

8

Morgan, claims against Defendant City of San Leandro for failure

9

to train and supervise properly, and claims against all Defendants

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

In the complaint, Doe alleges

Doe brought claims

for wrongful death.
On January 18, 2012, the Court consolidated Doe’s action with

12

the two higher-numbered actions captioned above.

13

in the other actions are also survivors and heirs of Gwendolyn

14

Killings.

15

The plaintiffs

Scott filed the instant petition for approval of a minor’s

16

compromise on May 3, 2012.

17

City of San Leandro, on behalf of all Defendants, has agreed to

18

pay a total of $50,000 to the four Plaintiffs to settle their

19

claims, and that Plaintiffs have agreed to divide this amount

20

equally, so that each will receive $12,500.

21

forty percent of Doe’s recovery, or $5,000, will be paid to her

22

attorneys as fees, along with an additional $311.15 as costs for

23

deposition transcripts and chart reproduction.

24

recovery under the settlement would be $7,188.85.

25

In his papers, he represents that the

He also states that

Thus, Doe’s net

As the Ninth Circuit recently stated, “District courts have a

26

special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c),

27

to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.”

28

v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011).
2

Robidoux

“In the

1

context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor

2

plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court to

3

‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement

4

serves the best interests of the minor.’”

5

Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)).

6

Id. (quoting Dacanay v.

The Ninth Circuit has directed that, in conducting this

7

inquiry in cases involving the settlement of a minor’s federal

8

claims, district courts should “limit the scope of their review to

9

the question whether the net amount distributed to each minor

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

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

12

similar cases,” and should “evaluate the fairness of each minor

13

plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the

14

total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or

15

plaintiffs’ counsel — whose interests the district court has no

16

special duty to safeguard.”

17

F.2d at 1078).

18

Id. at 1181-82 (citing Dacanay, 573

The Court notes that the percentage of Doe’s total recovery

19

to be paid to her counsel appears high.

20

Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., 2011 WL 5313965, at *2 (N.D. Cal.)

21

(remarking, in assessing the settlement of a minor’s claims, that

22

“a 40% contingency fee strikes the Court as a bit high”).

23

Court also notes that, as a minor, Doe might have a greater need,

24

and may have suffered greater damages, than the other Plaintiffs.

25

See, e.g., Botello v.

The

On the current record, the Court is unable to assess properly

26

the fairness of Doe’s net recovery.

27

days of the date of this Order, Petitioner shall provide evidence

28

that Doe’s net recovery under the settlement is fair and
3

Accordingly, within seven

1

reasonable in light of the strength of her claims, the facts of

2

the case and recovery in other similar cases.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/23/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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