K.J.P. v. San Diego, County of

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 K.J.P., a Minor, individually, by Case No.: 15cv2692-H-MDD and through their mother, Loan Thi 12 Minh Nguyen, et al., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 13 Plaintiffs, RENEWED PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE WITH 14 v. PARAMEDIC DEFENDANTS 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 16 Defendants. [ECF No. 216] 17 18 On December 17, 2019, Plaintiffs petitioned the Court to approve a 19 settlement between certain Defendants and two Minor Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 20 208). On January 13, 2020, the Court denied the petition without prejudice. 21 (ECF No. 215). The Court expressed its concern regarding the fairness of the 22 settlement to the Minor Plaintiffs considering that the Minor Plaintiffs were 23 to receive nothing from the proposed $50,000 -- $45,000 was to be provided to 24 counsel for Plaintiffs to fund or reimburse litigation expenses and $5,000 was 25 for Minor Plaintiffs’ mother. (Id. at 6-8). 26 Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ renewed petition to confirm the 1 modified the financial terms of the proposed settlement; instead they press 2 their argument that the proposed settlement is fair to the Minor Plaintiffs. 3 As the Court disagrees, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. 4 The proposed settlement is between Plaintiffs, including the two Minor 5 plaintiffs K.J.P. and K.P.P. (“Minor Plaintiffs”), and Defendants City of 6 Santee, Aaron Bagley, Aaron Hackett, Lakeside Fire Protection District, 7 Marc Poynter, and David Csik (collectively, “Paramedic Defendants”). The 8 Paramedic Defendants do not oppose the settlement (ECF Nos. 218, 219). 9 The non-settling Defendants (the “Sheriff Defendants”) oppose in part 10 claiming the settlement is inconsistent with the retainer agreement between 11 Plaintiffs and their counsel and because Plaintiffs did not address the Court’s 12 concerns. (ECF No. 220). The Minor Plaintiffs appear through their mother, 13 Plaintiff Loan Thi Minh Nguyen (“Plaintiff Nguyen”), as their guardian. 14 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY1 15 On November 2, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the operative second amended 16 complaint, alleging: (1) excessive force pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 17 the Sheriff’s Department Defendants; (2) denial of medical care pursuant to § 18 1983 against the Sheriff’s Department Defendants, the Santee Fire 19 Department Defendants, and District Defendants; (3) a § 1983 Monell claim 20 against the Municipal Entity Defendants; (4) battery against the County of 21 San Diego and Sheriff’s Department Defendants; (5) a Bane Act claim against 22 the County of San Diego and Sheriff’s Department Defendants; (6) an 23 Americans with Disabilities Act claim against the County of San Diego and 24 Sheriff’s Department Defendants; (7) an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim 25 26 1 The factual background of the case is recounted in the Court’s previous Order on the 1 against the County of San Diego and Sheriff’s Department Defendants; (8) 2 negligence against the County of San Diego and Sheriff’s Department 3 Defendants; (9) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against Sheriff 4 Gore; (10) wrongful death against all Defendants; (11) a substantive due 5 process violation under § 1983 against all Defendants; and (12) intentional 6 infliction of emotional distress against the County of San Diego and 7 Defendants Collins and Krull. (ECF No. 50). The only claims brought on 8 behalf of the Minor Plaintiffs are the wrongful death and substantive due 9 process claims. (See ECF No. 50). 10 On April 12, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment as to the 11 Paramedic Defendants on all claims including those brought by the Minor 12 Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 171 at 39). The Court denied summary judgment on 13 wrongful death and substantive due process claims as to other Defendants. 14 (Id. at 37-39). These other Defendants appealed the Court’s order, but do not 15 challenge the Court’s ruling regarding the Minor Plaintiffs’ claims. See 16 K.J.P. v. Cty. of San Diego, No. 19-55527, ECF No. 11 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 17 2019). Following entry of final judgment in favor of the Paramedic 18 Defendants on all claims, Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit for review 19 of various orders pertaining to the Paramedic Defendants. (See ECF No. 20 187). Before the filing of opening briefs, Plaintiffs reached a compromise 21 with the Paramedic Defendants that will finally resolve all claims against the 22 Paramedic Defendants. (ECF No. 208 at 2). 23 On November 27, 2019, Plaintiffs and the Paramedic Defendants filed a 24 notice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 17.1(a) consenting to magistrate judge 25 jurisdiction for the purpose of reviewing and approving any compromise 26 between the Minor Plaintiffs and the Paramedic Defendants. (ECF No. 207). 1 approved the exercise of jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge 2 Mitchell D. Dembin for this purpose. (ECF No. 210). 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), district courts have a 5 special duty to safeguard the interests of litigants who are Minors. See 6 Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 17(c). Rule 17(c) provides, in relevant part, that a district court “must 8 appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect 9 a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 17(c). With respect to proposed settlements in lawsuits involving 11 minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires district courts to “conduct [their] 12 own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of 13 the minor.” Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978); see 14 also Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983). The 15 district court considers “whether the net amount distributed to each minor 16 plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable in light of the facts of the 17 case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases . . . without 18 regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co- 19 plaintiffs or plaintiff’s counsel....” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 The proposed settlement between the Paramedic Defendants and 22 Plaintiffs has not been modified despite the Court raising concerns in its 23 prior order. Plaintiffs and the Paramedic Defendants have agreed that, in 24 exchange for a release of claims and dismissal with prejudice of all claims, 25 including Plaintiffs’ currently stayed direct appeal in the Ninth Circuit 26 against the Paramedic Defendants, the Paramedic Defendants will provide to 1 fees. (ECF No. 208 at 4). Specifically, the City of Santee will contribute 2 $25,000 and the Lakeside Fire Protection District will contribute $25,000. 3 (Id.). Pursuant to the agreement, $45,000 will go toward funding the 4 litigation expenses in this ongoing action against the remaining defendants.2 5 (Id. at 5). The remaining $5,000 will go to Plaintiff Nguyen, the mother of 6 the Minor Plaintiffs, for ongoing household and family expenses, including 7 the care and support of the Minor Plaintiffs. (Id.). As a result, none of the 8 proceeds will be directly allotted to the Minor Plaintiffs or to Plaintiff 9 Kimberly Chanthapanh. (Id.). Plaintiff Nguyen believes the settlement is 10 reasonable and declares that she will use the $5,000 “solely for the care and 11 support of [the Minor Plaintiffs].”3 (See ECF No. 208-2 at 2). 12 Having independently evaluated the renewed petition to approve the 13 settlement, the factual background, and the procedural posture of this case, 14 the Court cannot approve the petition. The Court is not convinced that the 15 settlement agreement protects the Minor Plaintiffs’ interests. See Salmeron 16 v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that “a court 17 must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement 18 of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected, 19 even if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the minor’s 20 parent or guardian ad litem”). 21 To determine whether the net recovery of a minor plaintiff’s settlement 22 23 24 2 Counsel for Plaintiffs declares that the litigation expenses thus far in this action exceed $150,000 and that the $45,000 received from the Paramedic Defendants will help 25 Plaintiffs continue this lawsuit against the remaining defendants. (ECF No. 208-1). 3 Plaintiff Nguyen also declares that following the death of her husband, Lucky Phounsy, 26 she is the sole caretaker for the Minor Plaintiffs, is unable to work, and only receives income from Social Security benefits following Lucky Phounsy’s death. (ECF No. 208-2 at 1 is in the best interests of the minor, a district court should look to “the facts 2 of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” 3 Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. The Court previously expressed concern that the 4 parties cited no similar cases for the Court to consider whether the 5 agreement is fair and reasonable for the Minor Plaintiffs. In response, 6 Plaintiffs concede they have been “unable to locate a case with a similar 7 procedural posture and similar allegations—i.e., a case in which a family of 8 wrongful-death plaintiffs lost their entire case against a set of paramedic 9 defendants in the district court, and then those defendants agreed to a 10 substantial settlement while the plaintiffs’ long-shot appeal was pending 11 and—more importantly—while the plaintiffs’ ongoing claims against law 12 enforcement defendants were still very much alive.” (ECF No. 216 at 2). The 13 Court agrees that finding an identical or nearly identical case was not likely 14 to succeed. Plaintiffs should have researched and examined similar, not 15 identical, cases. 16 The Court’s research revealed not a single wrongful death case in the 17 Ninth Circuit involving a large settlement amount where the minor plaintiffs 18 received nothing. The Court’s review revealed a few cases that are similar 19 enough to provide guidance on the instant petition. In Napier v. San Diego 20 Cty., a minor child’s father was shot and killed by two San Diego Sheriff’s 21 deputies. Napier v. San Diego Cty., No. 3:15-cv-00581-CAB (KSC), 2017 U.S. 22 Dist. LEXIS 196223, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017). There, parties settled on 23 the eve of trial, after the conclusion of discovery and after the defendants won 24 summary judgment on the § 1983 claims. Id. at *7. Although the court was 25 unable to identify cases involving similar circumstances, the court was able 26 to determine, based upon its own review of case law, that the minor plaintiffs’ 1 where a minor’s recovery ranging from $2,045.17 to $73,844.39 was found to 2 be fair and reasonable). The court noted that this was fair and reasonable 3 because of the uncertainty associated with a jury verdict. Id. at 7. In Cotta v. 4 Henderson, the parties reached a voluntary settlement following summary 5 judgment, an appeal, and a remand by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 6 Cotta v. Henderson, No. 1:13-cv-00359-BAM, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159326, 7 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018). There, the court found a settlement 8 distribution of $15,000 between two minor plaintiffs fair and reasonable 9 because prevailing at trial would likely have been costly, difficult, and 10 counsel estimated only a 10-15% chance of a favorable verdict. Id. at 7-9. In 11 Estate of Alvarado v. Tackett, the parties settled after the court granted in 12 part and denied in part the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. 13 Estate of Alvarado v. Tacket, No. 13cv1202-LL, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14 161351, at *3-6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019). There, the court approved the 15 minors’ compromises for $55,000 because “[t]he proposed settlement allows 16 for the certainty of recovery for the Minor Plaintiffs, as opposed to the 17 uncertainty associated with a jury verdict.” Id. at 9. 18 As in the cases cited above, there remains a level of uncertainty in the 19 outcome of this case. There are appeals pending in the Ninth Circuit and 20 certain causes of action against different Defendants are still active. Also, 21 Plaintiffs concede that the appeal is a “long-shot.” (ECF No. 216 at 2). 22 While the procedural posture of this case, Cotta, Napier, and Estate of 23 Alvarado are similar in that regard, the proposed settlement agreements 24 differ in one crucial and dispositive way: the proposed settlement in this case 25 provides absolutely no financial benefit to the Minor Plaintiffs and instead 26 provides the sole financial benefit to the attorneys and Minor Plaintiffs’ 1 ||certainty of recovery for the minor plaintiffs in the face of uncertain trial 9 ||verdicts. In contrast, approving this settlement would provide for a certainty 3 ||of no recovery for the Minor Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not shown how this 4 ||settlement agreement is more beneficial to the Minor Plaintiffs than facing 5 ||the risks of adverse decisions on appeal and at trial. 6 Plaintiffs contend that the $45,000 going towards litigation costs for the 7 Minor Plaintiffs’ causes of action benefit the Minor Plaintiffs because it will g || permit them to continue litigating this action. (/d. at 4-7). Plaintiffs also 9 ||contend that the $5,000 to Plaintiff Nguyen for “day-to-day household 10 ||expenses” benefit the Minor Plaintiffs because their mother will be able to 11 ||“ensure they have a safe, comfortable place to live.” Ud. at 4-7). The Court 12 previously noted that Plaintiff Nguyen’s declaration was insufficient to 13 ||ensure that the $5,000 would benefit the Minor Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs now 14 ||explain the Court could require Plaintiff Nguyen to submit a declaration and 15 || provide copies of receipts to prove the funds were exhausted and benefited 16 Minor Plaintiffs. Ud. at 7). The Court is not satisfied with this 17 |}arrangement for the reasons explained in the Court’s prior order. The Court 18 is not convinced that reimbursing counsel for litigation costs is in the 19 interests of the Minor Plaintiffs. 20 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the renewed petition to 92 ||approve the Minors’ compromises. (ECF No. 216). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 94 ||Dated: February 20, 2020 . Miter Sou Le Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27