Doe v. Clark County School District et al

Filing 58

ORDER that 57 Motion for the Compromise of a Minor's Claim is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's counsel shall have until September 26, 2018 to file a verified petition establishing the reasonableness of the proposed settlement and proposed distribution of settlement proceeds. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 9/13/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JANE DOE,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-01696-JAD-PAL
Plaintiff,

ORDER
(Mot Compromise – ECF No. 57)

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant.

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for the Compromise of a Minor’s Claim
(ECF No. 57) filed under seal pursuant to the Court’s Order (ECF No. 56).
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff is the mother of a minor child, Joann Doe, who alleges her daughter was
assaulted when she was thirteen years old and enrolled at Jerome D. Mack Middle School as a
special-education student. Joann has severe autism and the intellectual, mental, and emotional
capacity of a five-year-old child. As part of its special-education curriculum, Mack teaches general
life and household skills. These skills are taught in a hallway-like laundry room situated between
two other classrooms with a door on either side, a washer and dryer, and a bathroom. The doors
on either side have no windows, no locks, and will swing shut automatically unless propped open.
On May 10, 2016, defendant Fausto Barraza-Balcazar (“Barraza”), a special education
teaching aide, took Joann and another female student into the laundry room to rotate the laundry
from the washing machine to the dryer. While the other student went to the bathroom, Barraza
positioned Joann up against the laundry appliances and pressed his body, from chest to thigh,
against her backside. Joann’s teacher, Natasha Thompson, walked into the laundry room and saw
the profile of Barraza pressed up against Joann. Joann then ran into the bathroom. Thompson
reported the incident that afternoon. Barraza was suspended the next day and terminated after an
investigation. The Clark County District Attorney’s Office charged Barraza with four counts of
1

1

lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen. Three of these charges were for incidents

2

involving Joann, and the other for an incident involving another female student.

3

eventually pled guilty to one count of attempted lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen.

Barraza

4

After the close of discovery, CCSD moved for summary judgment on the majority of the

5

claims. The plaintiff abandoned several of the claims, except those for negligence/negligent

6

supervision; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and a Monell-based civil rights claim under

7

42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an Order (ECF No. 46) entered March 15, 2018, the district judge granted

8

summary judgment in favor of CCSD on plaintiff’s § 1983 and negligent infliction of emotional

9

distress claims, but denied the motion for summary judgment on the negligence/negligent

10

supervision claim. She found that there was a material issue of fact concerning whether CCSD

11

breached its duty of care by permitting the aide to be alone with students after a prior reprimand

12

for touching a student.

13

The district judge referred the matter to the undersigned to conduct a settlement conference.

14

At a settlement conference conducted on May 30, 2018, a settlement was reached under essential

15

terms memorialized in Minutes of Proceedings (ECF No. 54). A follow up telephonic status

16

conference was set for June 21, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. At the status conference, counsel for the

17

parties advised the court that the agreements had been drafted. However, plaintiff’s counsel was

18

still waiting to hear from Medicaid to determine whether there was any outstanding lien.

19

This motion was filed after counsel for plaintiff confirmed that Medicaid had not asserted

20

a lien. All of the settlement and release documents have been executed, and plaintiff now seeks

21

approval from the court to compromise the claim of the minor plaintiff. The total amount of the

22

settlement reached with Clark County is $50,000.00. Counsel for plaintiff waived the firm’s 40%

23

contingency fee agreement and seeks no fees from the settlement proceeds. However, plaintiff

24

seeks approval to apportion settlement proceeds to enable plaintiff’s counsel to recover costs in

25

the amount of $44,602.52 with the balance of $5,397.48 to be placed in a blocked trust account for

26

distribution when minor reaches age 18. The motion to approve the minor’s compromise states

27

that plaintiff will provide proof of the establishment of a locked trust account containing the net

28

settlement proceeds as described within 30 days of this court’s order.
2

1

The motion is not supported by a memorandum of points and authorities. As explained

2

below the Nevada Supreme Court has held that settlement of a minor’s claim is not effective until

3

approved by the district court upon a verified petition in writing. Haley v Eighth Judicial District

4

Court, 128 Nev. 171, 173 (2012). A copy of the executed settlement agreement is not attached,

5

and the court has no information supporting the $44,602.52 in costs for which plaintiff’s counsel

6

seeks reimbursement. The court also does not have a copy of any written fee agreement between

7

plaintiff and counsel for plaintiff for attorney’s fees and costs. The court will therefore deny the

8

motion without prejudice to filing a verified petition which complies with applicable law

9

governing compromise of the minor’s claim. The verified petition should attach until counsel for

10

a copy of the signed settlement agreement, documentation supporting the amount of the costs

11

expended, and be supported by the affidavit of counsel attesting to the reasonableness and

12

necessity for the costs incurred.

13

DISCUSSION

14

The Ninth Circuit has held that district courts have a special duty under Rule 17(c) of the

15

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux

16

v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 2011). Rule 17(c) specifically addresses actions

17

on behalf of a minor or incompetent person, and it provides:

18

23

(1) With a Representative. The following representatives may sue or
defend on behalf of a minor or an incompetent person:
(A) A general guardian;
(B) A committee;
(C) A conservator; or
(D) A like fiduciary.
(2) Without a Representative. A minor or an incompetent person who
does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend
or by a guardian ad litem. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem—
or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent
person who is unrepresented in an action.

24

In the context of proposed settlements and suits involving minor plaintiffs, the Ninth

25

Circuit has held that district courts have a “special duty” that requires the court “to ‘conduct its

26

own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor’.” Robidoux,

27

638 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Dacaney v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). The court

28

must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s claim to

19
20
21
22

3

1

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

2

and/or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem. Id. Prior to the Robidoux decision

3

federal courts in the Ninth Circuit typically applied state law and local rules governing the award

4

of attorney’s fees. Id. In Robidoux, however, the Ninth Circuit found that this approach “places

5

undue emphasis on the amount of attorney’s fees provided for in a settlement, instead of focusing

6

on the net recovery of the minor plaintiffs under the proposed agreement.” Id. There, the Ninth

7

Circuit held the “district court’s special duty to protect minor plaintiffs requires only that the

8

district court consider whether the net recovery” to the minor is fair and reasonable, without regard

9

to the amount plaintiffs agreed to pay plaintiffs’ counsel. Id. at 1182. The Ninth Circuit concluded

10

that if the net recovery to the minor plaintiff under the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable,

11

“the district court should approve the settlement as presented, regardless of the amount the parties

12

agreed to designate for adult co-plaintiffs and attorney’s fees.” Id.

13

In Haley v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 128 Nev. 171, 273 P.3d 855 (2012), the Nevada

14

Supreme Court addressed the scope of the district court’s authority to unilaterally modify a

15

settlement agreement under NRS 41.200, Nevada’s statute governing the compromise of a minor’s

16

claim. The Nevada Supreme Court concluded that the district judge may adjust the terms of the

17

settlement in accordance with the minor’s best interests because NRS 41.200 “leaves the allocation

18

of fees and costs to the district court’s discretion.” Id. at 173, 273 P.3d at 857. NRS 41.200(1)

19

provides that when a minor has a claim for money against a third person, either the minor’s parents

20

or a guardian ad litem has the right to compromise the claim. However, a compromise is not

21

effective until approved by the district court upon a verified petition in writing. Id.

22

In Haley, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected the attorney/petitioner’s position that the

23

district court’s authority to approve a compromise of a minor’s claim merely “affords a district

24

court narrow authority to approve a compromise in its entirety and to then determine where the

25

money will be paid on behalf of the minor, as opposed to determining the amount the minor will

26

receive.” 128 Nev. at 176, 273 P.3d at 859. Rather, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the

27

district court’s approval of a minor’s compromise “expressly encompasses a review of the

28

proposed apportionment of proceeds, including the amount to be used for attorney’s fees and other
4

1

expenses.” Id. (citing NRS 41.200(2)(f)). The Nevada Supreme Court found this conclusion was

2

consistent with the general authority set forth in Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), which

3

allows the district court to issue any “order as it deems proper for the protection” of a minor. In

4

reaching its decision, the Nevada Supreme Court noted that Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)

5

is nearly identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), which the Ninth Circuit had interpreted

6

as charging the court with a “ ‘special duty … to safeguard the interests of litigants who are

7

minors’.” Haley, 128 Nev. at 177, 273 P.3d at 859 (quoting Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82).

8

Citing Ninth Circuit and other federal circuit case law, the Nevada Supreme Court concluded that

9

“NRS 41.200 allows the district court to assess the reasonableness of the petition to approve the

10

compromise of a minor’s claim and to ensure the approval of the proposed compromise is in the

11

minor’s best interest.” Id., 273 P.3d at 860. “This review necessarily entails the authority to

12

review each portion of the proposed compromise for reasonableness and to adjust the terms of the

13

settlement accordingly, including the fees and costs to be taken from the minor’s recovery.” Id.

14

In this case, the court is informed the minor’s mother agreed to a 40% contingency fee

15

agreement after recovery of costs. Counsel for plaintiff graciously agreed to waive fees and seeks

16

only to recover out-of-pocket costs. However, the court has not been provided with information

17

sufficient to assess the reasonableness of the proposed distributions. Accordingly,

18

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff’s counsel shall

19

have until September 26, 2018 to file a verified petition establishing the reasonableness of the

20

proposed settlement and proposed distribution of settlement proceeds. The verified petition must

21

attach:

22

1. A copy of the executed settlement agreement;

23

2. A copy of any written fee agreement between plaintiff and counsel for plaintiff

24

for attorney’s fees and costs,

25

3. An itemization with supporting documentation for costs disbursed by counsel

26

for plaintiff in the prosecution of this case for which reimbursement from

27

settlement proceeds is sought, and

28
5

1

4. The verified petition must be supported by the affidavit of counsel responsible

2

for the billings in the case authenticating the information contained in the

3

verified petition and confirming the itemization of costs was reviewed and that

4

the costs were reasonable and necessary for the prosecution of this case.

5

DATED this 13th day of September, 2018.

6
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6