Malloy et al v. County of Santa Cruz

Filing 88

ORDER GRANTING #86 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: MINORS' COMPROMISE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/24/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

KATHLEEN E. WELLS, State Bar No. 107051
Attorney at Law
3393 Maplethorpe Lane
Soquel, California 95073
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs MICHAEL MALLOY, AMI MALLOY, L.S. MALLOY &
E.S. MALLOY

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION – ECF PROGRAM

11
12
13
14
15
16

MICHAEL MALLOY; AMI MALLOY;
L.S. MALLOY, a minor by and through
his proposed guardian ad litem AMI
MALLOY; E.S. MALLOY, a minor by
and through his proposed guardian ad
litem AMI MALLOY,

17

Case No. 5:16-cv-05135 EJD
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND
REQUEST FOR ORDER RE:
MINORS’ COMPROMISE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

Plaintiffs,

18
19

v.

20

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, CITY OF
SCOTTS VALLEY, OFFICER
MICHAEL BIRLY; CAROLYN
STRAGE; WENDELL STAMPS;
YOONI POMPER; ERIN BURTON;
STEPHANIE VICOTTI, ANGELICA
GLASS; JUDY YOKEL; CECILIA
ESPINOZA; BEATRICE MONJAREZ;
AND 20 UNKNOWN
AGENTS/EMPLOYEES OF THE
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ AND THE
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendants.

28
Malloy, et al. vs. County of Santa Cruz, et al.,
Case No. 5:16-05135 EJD

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR MINORS’ COMPROMISE
-1-

I.

1
2
3

BASIS FOR MOTION

This case presents claims by Plaintiffs, Ami Malloy, Michael Malloy and
their children L.S. and E.S., that the defendants unlawfully arrested them, used

4
5
6

excessive force and removed the minor children from their parents.
All defendants have, and still do, contended throughout the litigation that

7
8
9
10

their actions were reasonable and lawful.
The matter proceeded to mediation on August 10, 2017, before Claudia
Leed, Esq. and the matter settled for $9,750.

11
12
13

The defendants do not oppose the proposed distribution set forth herein
below, thereby eliminating the need for a hearing.

14

II.

PARTIES

15
16

The parties to this settlement are as follows:

17

1. Plaintiff Ami Malloy

18
19
20
21

2. Plaintiff Michael Malloy
3. Plaintiff E.S., minor son of Ami and Michael Malloy, by and through
his mother and Guardian Ad Litem, Ami Malloy.

22
23
24
25

4. Plaintiff L.S., minor son of Ami and Michael Malloy, by and through
his mother and Guardian Ad Litem, Ami Malloy.
5. minor son of Ami and Michael Malloy, by and through his mother and

26
27

Guardian Ad Litem, Ami Malloy.

28
Malloy, et al. vs. County of Santa Cruz, et al.,
Case No. 5:16-05135 EJD

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR MINORS’ COMPROMISE
-2-

1
2
3

6 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ and the following employees of the
COUNTY:
a. CAROLYN STRAGE;

4
5

b. WENDELL STAMPS;

6

c. YOONI POMPER;

7
8
9
10

d. ERIN BURTON;
e. STEPHANIE VICOTTI,
f. ANGELICA GLASS;

11
12
13
14

g. JUDY YOKEL;
h. CECILIA ESPINOZA.
It should be noted that defendants City of Scotts Valley and Officer

15
16

Michael Birley were dismissed with prejudice by stipulation and order of this court.

17

III.

CURRENT STATUS

18
19

The plaintiffs have agreed to a monetary settlement with regards to all

20

claims and with regard to all defendants, without any admission of liability by any

21

defendant for the acts complained of, with each side bearing their own fees and

22
23

costs. All claims against all defendants are to be dismissed as part of the settlement.

24
25

IV.

PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION

In settlement of the case, without admitting liability, defendants have

26
27

agreed to pay $9,750 in equal portions to plaintiffs Ami Malloy and Michael

28
Malloy, et al. vs. County of Santa Cruz, et al.,
Case No. 5:16-05135 EJD

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR MINORS’ COMPROMISE
-3-

1

Malloy and E.S. and L.S. Malloy, the minor children of the Malloys, represented by

2

their mother, Ami Malloy as their Guardian Ad Litem. The Court is also asked to

3

approve the payment to counsel for plaintiffs of 1/3 of the settlement amount

4
5
6

totalling $3,250. Counsel has waived repayment of costs.
Plaintiffs’ counsel had no prior relationship with any Plaintiff prior to

7
8
9
10

representing them in this case.
Plaintiffs’ counsel submits that her fees are reasonable and should be
awarded in the amount requested.

11

V.

12
13
14

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs and their counsel request the Court’s approval of the
distribution of the proceeds of the settlement as set forth herein above and the

15
16
17

payment of attorney fees, without a hearing.
Respectfully submitted,

18
19
20

Dated: August 23, 2017

21
22

__/s/ Kathleen E. Wells____________________
KATHLEEN E. WELLS
Attorney for Plaintiffs

23
24
25
26
27
28
Malloy, et al. vs. County of Santa Cruz, et al.,
Case No. 5:16-05135 EJD

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR MINORS’ COMPROMISE
-4-

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR

3
4
5

The court hereby approves the plaintiffs’ Request for Compromise of
Claims as set forth in their motion.

6
7
8
9
10

Dated: August 24, 2018
____________________________________________
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE EDWARD J. DAVILA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Malloy, et al. vs. County of Santa Cruz, et al.,
Case No. 5:16-05135 EJD

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR MINORS’ COMPROMISE
-5-