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: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Karen L. Snell (CA SBN 100266)
Attorney at Law
102 Buena Vista Terrace
San Francisco, CA 94117
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
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: [phone]
FAX [phone]

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: [phone]
FAX [phone]

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: [phone]
FAX [phone]

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: [phone]
FAX [phone]

Singh vs. City of Gilroy, et al.
Page 4
AMENDED (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO COMPROMISE CLAIM OF MINORS