Estate of Gurmit Singh et al v. City of Gilroy et al
Filing
199
ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO COMPROMISE CLAIM OF MINORS re #198 Amended Document filed by Estate of Gurmit Singh, #197 Notice (Other) filed by Estate of Gurmit Singh. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/31/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Andrew C. Schwartz (CA SBN 64578)
CASPER, MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK
A Professional Corporation
California Plaza
2121 North California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Telephone: (925) 947-1147
Facsimile:
(925) 947-1131
E-Mail: Schwartz@cmslaw.com
Karen L. Snell (CA SBN 100266)
Attorney at Law
102 Buena Vista Terrace
San Francisco, CA 94117
Telephone: (415) 225-7592
Facsimile: (415) 487-0748
E-Mail: Ksnell@snell-law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
SAN JOSE DIVISION
15
16
17
18
ESTATE OF GURMIT SINGH, PARAMJIT
KAUR, S.K., a minor, by and through her
guardian ad litem, Paramjit Kaur, and A. S., a
minor, by and through his guardian ad litem,
Paramjit Kaur,
19
Case No.: C09-00740 EJD
AMENDED (PROPOSED) ORDER
APPROVING PETITION TO
COMPROMISE CLAIM OF MINORS
Plaintiffs,
20
21
vs.
22
CITY OF GILROY, OFFICER RODRIGUEZ,
individually and in his capacity as a police
officer for the City of Gilroy, and DOES 1
through 50,
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff PARAMJIT KAUR’s Petition to Compromise Claim of Minors came before
the Honorable Edward Davila, presiding.
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, THE COURT FINDS:
28
CASPER, MEADOWS,
SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
TEL: (925) 947-1147
FAX (925) 947-1131
Singh vs. City of Gilroy, et al.
Page 1
AMENDED (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO COMPROMISE CLAIM OF MINORS
1
2
3
1.
Petitioner is the mother and regularly appointed Guardian ad Litem of Plaintiffs,
S.K. and A.S., both minors, in this action.
2.
Plaintiff S.K. is a nine-year-old, born */*/****..
3.
Plaintiff A.S. is an eight-year-old, born */*/****.
4.
Plaintiffs, S.K. and A.S., have a claim for damages arising out of the shooting death
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
of their father, Gurmit Singh, on February 8, 2008, by members of the Gilroy Police Department.
5.
This matter was tried before a jury in the above-entitled court, and a verdict was
rendered in favor of the plaintiffs against defendant Rodriguez and the City of Gilroy in the amount
of $1,275,000. A copy of the verdict form is attached as Exhibit A to this petition. The jury also
11
found that plaintiffs’ decedent, Gurmit Singh, was 50% responsible for his death as to plaintiffs’
12
13
14
negligence cause of action.
6.
Subsequent to the jury’s verdict, and prior to the defendants filing a post-trial
15
motion to reduce the verdict by 50% due to plaintiffs’ decedent’s comparative fault, the parties
16
held a mediation with Charles Hawkins on May 1, 2012. During the course of the mediation, the
17
parties agreed to resolve not only plaintiffs’ claim for damages, but plaintiffs’ attorneys’ claim for
18
attorneys’ fees and costs.
19
20
7.
Plaintiff has represented that Defendants have offered to pay one million dollars to
21
the minor plaintiffs and their mother in consideration of a dismissal with prejudice and a full
22
release in this matter. If the settlement is approved by this Court, the money will be allocated as
23
follows:
24
(a)
$900,000 to plaintiff Paramjit Kaur.
(b)
$100,000 to Plaintiffs S.K. and A.S. to be divided equally and to be placed into
25
26
27
28
CASPER, MEADOWS,
SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
TEL: (925) 947-1147
FAX (925) 947-1131
an annuity, calling for periodic payments. A true and correct copy of a letter from Ringler
Associates summarizing the terms of the annuities is attached hereto.
Singh vs. City of Gilroy, et al.
Page 2
AMENDED (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO COMPROMISE CLAIM OF MINORS
1
2
8.
According to agreement of the parties, the remaining $900,000 of the settlement
will be used by plaintiff Paramjit Kaur to raise her children and, hopefully, to purchase a home.
3
9.
Petitioner engaged the law firm of Casper, Meadows, Schwartz & Cook and the
4
Law Offices of Karen Snell to represent plaintiffs in this matter. The Contingency Retainer
5
6
Agreement provides:
7
It is possible that attorneys may be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees related
8
to the prosecution of this lawsuit. The attorneys may also be entitled to
negotiate a settlement of their entitlement to attorneys’ fees in addition to a
9
settlement for the client. The attorneys shall have the option of electing to
10
recover a percentage of the full recovery, or court awarded fees or separately
11
negotiated entitlement to fees, whichever is greater.
12
13
14
10.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys were not recommended to Petitioner by defendants, and
Plaintiffs’ attorneys have no business or other relationship with defendants and will receive no
other compensation for their services except as described in this Petition.
15
11.
16
Petitioner is informed and believes and on this basis alleges that plaintiffs’
17
counsel and defendants separately negotiated plaintiffs’ attorneys’ entitlement to fees. The
18
parties agreed that in addition to the $1,000,000 in damages to be paid to plaintiffs, defendants
19
will pay plaintiffs’ counsel of record in this matter fees in the amount of $1,000,000. This
20
number is based on the actual work performed by the attorneys. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have
21
spent more than 2500 hours litigating this matter. The law firm of Casper, Meadows, Schwartz
22
23
& Cook and the Law Offices of Karen L. Snell are attorneys of record for Plaintiffs in this
24
matter.
Should the Court approve the settlement, defendants would issue a check for
25
$1,000,000 to the law firm of Casper, Meadows, Schwartz & Cook, which would be distributed
26
by that firm to all of the counsel of record in this matter as payment in full of their attorneys’
27
fees.
28
CASPER, MEADOWS,
SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
TEL: (925) 947-1147
FAX (925) 947-1131
Singh vs. City of Gilroy, et al.
Page 3
AMENDED (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO COMPROMISE CLAIM OF MINORS
1
2
3
12.
In addition, defendants have agreed to reimburse the law firm of Casper, Meadows,
Schwartz & Cook $133,000 for costs incurred in prosecuting this matter, the remainder to revert to
the plaintiffs.
To date, costs total approximately $133,000. Should the Court approve the
4
settlement, defendants will issue a second check for total costs incurred in the amount of $133,000
5
6
made payable to Casper, Meadows, Schwartz & Cook.
13.
7
Petitioner recommends this settlement to the Court as being fair and reasonable,
8
and in the best interests of the minors. Petitioner understands that if the proposed settlement is
9
approved, plaintiffs will be barred from seeking further compensation in the future.
10
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
11
1.
The settlement on behalf of S.K. and A.S. is hereby approved.
2.
Defendants are hereby authorized and directed to pay to plaintiff Paramjit Kaur
12
13
14
the amount of $900,000.
15
16
17
3.
The Defendants are hereby authorized and directed to pay through Ringler
Associates the sum of $100,000 for the purchase of annuities for the benefit of S.K. and A.S. as
set forth in the Petition and Exhibit “B” attached thereto.
18
4.
Defendants are hereby authorized and directed to pay the law firm of Casper,
19
20
Meadows, Schwartz & Cook, attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,000,000, which will be
21
distributed by that firm to all of the counsel of record in this matter as payment in full of their
22
attorney’s fees. In addition, Defendants will issue a check for total costs incurred in the
23
amount of $133,000 made payable to Casper, Meadows, Schwartz & Cook.
24
25
26
Dated:
May 31, 2012
______________________________________
HON. EDWARD DAVILA
United States District Judge
27
28
CASPER, MEADOWS,
SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N. California Blvd.,
Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
TEL: (925) 947-1147
FAX (925) 947-1131
Singh vs. City of Gilroy, et al.
Page 4
AMENDED (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO COMPROMISE CLAIM OF MINORS
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?