D.C. v. County of San Diego et al

Filing 168

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION to Approve Minors' Compromise [ECF No. 165 ]. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation are due by 1/6/2022. A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of being served with it. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez on 12/21/2021. (tcf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

D.C., a minor by and through his
Guardian Ad Litem, HELEN GARTER,

Case No.: 15cv1868-MMA-NLS
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
TO APPROVE MINORS’
COMPROMISE

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
Defendants.

[ECF No. 165]

17
18

Petitioner Helen Garter, guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff D.C., seeks an order

19

approving a proposed settlement of D.C.’s claims against all Defendants. ECF No. 165.

20

The Petition is unopposed. ECF No. 167. Because the settlement serves the minors’ best

21

interests, this Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition be GRANTED.

22

BACKGROUND

23

Plaintiff D.C. brought claims on his own behalf and on behalf of a prospective class,

24

arising out of medical procedures, including examinations, that were performed on him at

25

the County of San Diego’s Polinsky Children’s Center after he was removed from his

26

mother’s custody and control. ECF No. 165 at 2. Plaintiff claimed that the medical

27

procedures, including the examination, were investigatory in nature, were performed

28

without D.C.’s knowledge or consent, without court order, without exigent circumstances,
1

15cv1868-MMA-NLS

1

and without an opportunity for his mother to be present at the examination. Id. Plaintiff

2

D.C. alleged that similar unconstitutional medical procedures, including examinations,

3

were performed on other children at the Polinsky Children’s Center. Id. There is no

4

evidence that D.C. has sustained lasting injuries from the unconstitutional medical

5

procedures, including examination, or from the removal and detention. Id. at 4.

6

On November 7, 2017, Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification was denied. Id. The

7

settlement discussed herein relates solely to D.C. Id. On October 6, 2021, a Mandatory

8

Settlement Conference was held before Magistrate Judge Stormes. Judge Stormes made a

9

settlement recommendation to the parties. ECF No. 158. On October 20, 2021, the County

10

notified Plaintiff and the Court that the County Board of Supervisors had approved an offer

11

to settle this action for $350,000 in exchange for dismissal of this action and waiver of

12

Plaintiff’s right to bring any subsequent claims against the County that may arise. ECF No.

13

165 at 3. Plaintiff agreed to accept this settlement proposal. Id. On October 25, 2021, the

14

parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement. ECF No. 159. Judge Stormes then requested that

15

another magistrate judge be randomly assigned to handle the minor’s compromise in this

16

case. ECF No. 160. The below signed magistrate judge was randomly assigned. Id. On

17

December 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Petition. ECF No. 165. On December 16,

18

2021, Defendant County of San Diego filed a notice that it will not file an objection to the

19

proposed amounts in the Petition and will submit to the Court on this issue. ECF No. 167.

20

The terms of the settlement include: (1) $100,000 made payable to Structured

21

Assignments SCC to fund future periodic payments to D.C.; (2) $153,540.42 in attorneys’

22

fees to The Law Office of Donnie R. Cox; and (3) $96,459.58 in costs payable to The Law

23

Office of Donnie R. Cox. ECF No. 165 at 3-4.

24

DISCUSSION

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. (citations omitted). The Court is
2

15cv1868-MMA-NLS

1

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

2

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

3

minors’ specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1182; see also Salmeron v.

4

United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that “a court must

5

independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s claims

6

to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected, even if the settlement has been

7

recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem”).

8

The settlement of $100,000 to D.C. appears reasonable, especially given the amount

9

approved in similar cases. See Mann et al. v. County of San Diego et al., No. 11-cv-0708-

10

GPC-AGS (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020) (approving $50,000 each for four minors who

11

experienced similar treatment as D.C.); Reynolds et al. v. County of San Diego et al., No.

12

11-cv-01256-JAH-AGS (S.D. Cal. July 8, 2020) (approving $35,000 per minor); see also

13

B.R. v. County of Orange, No. 8:15-cv-00626-CJC-PJW, ECF No. 84, at 2 (C.D. Cal. Mar.

14

30, 2018) (approving $50,000 settlement for minor who was removed from mother’s

15

custody without cause, but who suffered no injury); Bruno v. County of Los Angeles, No.

16

SACV 17-01301-CJC(JEx), ECF No. 71, at 4, 8 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2019) (approving a

17

settlement of $60,000 per minor for minors who were removed from their parents’ custody

18

and subjected to medical examinations and vaccinations without a warrant or parental

19

consent); Xoss v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:12-cv-1400-PSG-RZ, ECF No. 150, at 2

20

(C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2014) (approving total settlement of $122,959.80 for two minors who

21

were removed from their parents’ custody without a warrant).

22

Additionally, in California, courts are required to approve the attorney’s fees to be

23

paid for representation of a minor. See CAL. PROB. CODE § 2601. Attorney’s fees and costs

24

are typically controlled by statute, local rule, or local custom. See Napier by and through

25

Quiroz v. San Diego County, No. 3:15-cv-00581-CAB-KSC, 2017 WL 5759803, at *3

26

(S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017). To determine whether the fee is reasonable, courts consider: (1)

27

the amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services performed; (2) the novelty

28

and difficulty of the questions involved and skills required; (3) the amount involved and
3

15cv1868-MMA-NLS

1

the results obtained; and (4) the experience and ability of the attorney. CAL. RULE OF CT.

2

7.955(b). In minor’s compromise cases, “the district court should evaluate the fairness of

3

each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement

4

value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel – whose interests the district

5

court has no special duty to safeguard.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181.

6

Here, Plaintiff’s attorney seeks $153,540.42 in attorney’s fees and $96,459.58 in

7

costs. ECF No. 165 at 3-4. This amount appears reasonable given the duration of this case,

8

the amount of work performed by Plaintiff’s experienced counsel, the work performed by

9

experts, the results obtained, and the complexity of the issues. Accordingly, the Court

10

RECOMMENDS that the Petition [ECF No. 165] be GRANTED. Any objections to this

11

Report and Recommendation are due by January 6, 2022. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A

12

party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of being served with it. See Fed.

13

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 21, 2021

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

15cv1868-MMA-NLS