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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 KATHLEEN E. WELLS, State Bar No. 107051 Attorney at Law 3393 Maplethorpe Lane Soquel, California 95073 Telephone: (831) 475-1243 Email: lioness@got.net 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-

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?