Garcia et al v. Buncich et al

Filing 59

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 57 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval filed by City of East Chicago Common Council, George Coffey, Kevin Harretos, East Chicago Police Department, Jose Rivera, Nathaniel London, Mark J Becker. The Court APPROVES the compromise of the minors' claims and APPROVES the settlement. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 1/16/18. (mlc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
ABIGAIL GARCIA, on behalf
of herself and her two minor
children J.G. and A.G.,
MARILY GARCIA, JESUS RIOS,
and GILBERTO GARCIA,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE CITY OF EAST CHICAGO
COMMON COUNCIL d/b/a EAST
CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 2:16-cv-321

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Approve
Settlement, filed by Plaintiff, Abigail Garcia, on behalf of
herself and her two minor children J.G. and A.G., Marily Garcia,
Jesus Rios, Gilberto Garcia (“Plaintiffs”) and The City of East
Chicago Common Council d/b/a East Chicago Police Department, Mark
J. Becker, as Chief of Police, East Chicago Police Department,
Detective Kevin Harretos, Sergeant Jose Rivera, Sergeant George
Coffey and Sergeant Nathaniel London (“Defendants”), on January 2,
2018 (DE #57). Upon due consideration, the motion (DE #57) is
GRANTED and the settlement is APPROVED.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, Abigail Garcia, on behalf of herself and her two
minor children J.G. and A.G., Marily Garcia, Jesus Rios, and
Gilberto Garcia, filed a second amended complaint in this case on
April 12, 2017 (DE #38). Plaintiffs filed suit against the City of
East Chicago, its police chief, and named defendant officers based
upon their using explosives and firearms to enter and violently
search Plaintiff’s home in East Chicago, IN, at 5:00 in the morning
while they were still sleeping. (DE #38.)

The second amended

complaint alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I),
unreasonable search and seizure (Count II), unreasonable search and
seizure with false arrest pursuant to section 1983 (Count III),
failure to implement appropriate police department policies and
procedures

(Count

IV),

battery

and

assault

(Count

V),

and

intentional destruction of property (Count VI). Plaintiffs alleged
that the “violent assault” caused “non-physical injuries to the
minors J.G. and A.G.”

(DE #38 ¶ 26.)

On January 2, 2018, all parties filed the instant joint motion
to approve the settlement.

(DE #57.)

The parties state they were

able to settle the matter for $15,000.

(Id. at 2.)

The parties

also stipulate that in the police raid, “the minor plaintiffs were
not physically touched by any of the Defendants and did not suffer
any physical or mental injuries as a result of the incident. Thus,
none of the funds from the settlement will be allocated to the
2

minor plaintiffs.”

(Id. at 2.)

DISCUSSION
Indiana Code 29-3-9-7 provides as follows:
(a) Whenever it is proposed to compromise any claim
by or against a protected person or the protected
person’s property, the court, on petition of the
guardian, may enter an order authorizing the compromise
to be made if satisfied that the compromise will be in
the best interest of the protected person.
(b) Whenever a minor has a disputed claim against
another person, whether arising in contract, tort, or
otherwise, and a guardian for the minor and the minor’s
property has not been appointed, the parents of the minor
may compromise the claim. However, before the compromise
is valid, it must be approved by the court upon filing of
a petition requesting the court’s approval. If the court
approves the compromise, it may direct that the
settlement be paid in accordance with IC 29-3-3-1. If IC
29-3-3-1 is not applicable, the court shall require that
a guardian be appointed and that the settlement be
delivered to the guardian upon the terms that the court
directs.
Ind. Code 29-3-9-7 (emphasis added). In this case, no guardian has
been appointed1, thus section (a) is not applicable, and the court
need not determine that the compromise is made in the best interest
of the protected person.

Rather, section (b) is applicable.

Section (b) dictates that the parents of the minor may compromise
the claim, but first it must be approved by the court upon filing
1

This comports with Indiana Code section 29-3-3-1 which
provides that “[a]ny person indebted to a minor . . . in an
amount not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) may pay the
debt without the appointment of a guardian . . . directly to any
person having the care and custody of the minor with whom the
minor resides.” Ind. Code 29-3-3-1.
3

of a petition requesting the court’s approval.
Because the parties have agreed and stipulated that the minor
plaintiffs did not receive physical or mental injuries as a result
of the incident, and because they are jointly requesting this Court
approve the settlement, this Court approves the compromise of the
minors’ claims and approves the settlement.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Motion to
Approve Settlement (DE #57), APPROVES the compromise of the minors’
claims, and APPROVES the settlement.

DATED: January 16, 2018

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

4