Reynolds et al v. San Diego, County of et al

Filing 210

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION to Approve Minors' Compromise (ECF 209 ). The Court recommends: 1. The motion to approve the settlement be GRANTED. 2. The compromise and settlement of the claims of the minors H.R. and R.R. be approved as fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs. Any objections to this report and recommendation are due by July 21, 2020. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of being served with it. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 7/8/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Trevor REYNOLDS, et al.,

Case No.: 11-cv-1256-JAH-AGS
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO APPROVE MINORS’
COMPROMISE (ECF 209)

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

Petitioner Robert Powell, guardian ad litem for minor plaintiffs H.R. and R.R., seeks

18

an order approving a proposed settlement of the minors’ claims against all defendants.

19

Because the settlement serves the minors’ best interests, the Court recommends that the

20

motion be granted.

21

BACKGROUND

22

This suit arises from allegations that defendants, San Diego County and County

23

social workers, wrongfully removed the minor plaintiffs from the care, custody, and control

24

of their parents. (ECF 209, at 2.) On June 10, 2010, defendants placed a “hospital hold” on

25

R.R. when her parents brought her to the hospital with a broken femur. Id. At the same

26

time, defendants authorized the removal of H.R. from his parents’ care and custody and

27

sent a social worker to remove him from the supervision of his grandmother, who was

28

watching him while his parents were with his sister. Id.
1
11-cv-1256-JAH-AGS

1
2

H.R. was then taken to a County shelter care facility and subjected to medical

3

examinations, including blood and urine tests, without the presence, notice, or consent of

4

his parents. Id. He remained at the facility through June 15, 2010. Id. Petitioner does not

5

represent that either minor required medical treatment as a result of removal, nor did they

6

seek special damages for psychological or psychiatric treatment. (See id. at 3, 6.)

7

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Confirm the Minors’ Compromise provides that the two minor

8

children will each receive an amount made payable to Structured Assignments SCC to fund

9

three future payments through the purchase of an annuity from Security Benefit Life

10

Insurance Company. (ECF 209, at 5; ECF 209-3, at 2; ECF 209-4, at 2.) These payments

11

will occur for each minor at ages 18, 24, and 28. (ECF 209-2, at 3.) The total payout to

12

each minor plaintiff will be:

13

1. H.R. - $35,000, plus index gains not less than 0% (ECF 209-3, at 2.)

14

2. R.R. - $25,000, plus index gains not less than 0% (ECF 209-4, at 2.)

15

The exact amount of each “index gains” payment will depend on stock market

16

performance, but the total payment to each minor will not be less than the amount listed

17

above.

18

DISCUSSION

19

District courts have “a special duty” to “safeguard the interests of litigants who are

20

minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). In the settlement

21

context, that duty requires the court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the

22

settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. (citations omitted). The Court is

23

required to limit the scope of its review to “whether the net amount distributed to each

24

minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the

25

minors’ specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1182. “Most importantly, the

26

district court should evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without

27

regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or

28

plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id.
2
11-cv-1256-JAH-AGS

1

Having reviewed the complaint and the parties’ briefing, the Court is intimately

2

familiar with this case’s facts and legal issues. With that experience in mind, the Court

3

recognizes that litigation is always uncertain and concludes that the proposed settlement is

4

fair, reasonable, and in the minors’ best interests.

5

Moreover, the minors’ recovery in this case is reasonable in light of those approved

6

in similar cases. See, e.g., Mann v. Cty. of San Diego, No. 11-cv-0708-GPC, 2020 U.S.

7

Dist. LEXIS 33917 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2020) (approving payment of $50,000 per minor

8

for minors who were removed from their parents’ custody and subjected to medical exams

9

without parental consent); B.R. v. Cty. of Orange, No. 8:15-cv-00626-CJC-PJW,

10

ECF No. 84, at 2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018) (approving $50,000 settlement for minor who

11

was removed from mother’s custody without cause but suffered no injury); Bruno v. Cty.

12

of Los Angeles, No. SACV 17-01301-CJC(JEx), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227883, at *12

13

(C.D. Cal. July 18, 2019) (approving a settlement of $60,000 per minor for minors who

14

were removed from their parents’ custody and subjected to medical examinations and

15

vaccinations without a warrant or parental consent).

16

While the payments to H.R. and R.R. are lower than awards in similar cases, the

17

settlement is still reasonable “in light of the facts of the case.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182.

18

For example, while the minors in Mann were allegedly separated from their parents for

19

approximately three months, H.R. and R.R.’s removal lasted only about five days. See

20

Mann, No. 11-cv-0708-GPC, ECF No. 1, at 19; (ECF 209, at 2). In Bruno, at least one

21

minor was separated from his parents for 11 days, and the other was administered seven

22

vaccines—including one with an ingredient to which he had previously had an allergic

23

reaction—with no attempt made to verify his medical history. Bruno, 2019 U.S. Dist.

24

LEXIS 227883 at *5-6. It is also notable that the Bruno settlement of $60,000 per minor

25

came from three separate defendants, see id. at *9-10, while H.R. and R.R.’s payments are

26

being funded entirely by San Diego County. (See ECF 209, at 3.)

27
28

Accordingly, the Court recommends:
1. The motion to approve the settlement be GRANTED.
3
11-cv-1256-JAH-AGS

1

2. The compromise and settlement of the claims of the minors H.R. and R.R. be

2

approved as fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs.

3

Any objections to this report and recommendation are due by July 21, 2020. See

4

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of being

5

served with it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

6

Dated: July 8, 2020

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
11-cv-1256-JAH-AGS