Mann 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 Mark MANN, et al., Case No.: 11-cv-0708-GPC-AGS 12 Plaintiffs, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 v. TO APPROVE MINORS’ COMPROMISE (ECF No. 370) 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Petitioner Bruce Paul, Court-appointed guardian ad litem for minor plaintiffs 18 N.G.P.M., M.N.A.M., M.C.G.M., and N.E.H.M., seeks an order approving a proposed 19 settlement of the minors’ claims against all defendants. Because the settlement serves the 20 minors’ best interests, the Court recommends that the 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 No. 370, at 2.) The minor plaintiffs were then taken to a County 25 shelter care facility and subjected to medical examinations without the presence, notice, or 26 consent of their parents. Petitioner does not represent that any minor required medical 27 treatment as a result, nor did they seek special damages for psychological treatment. (See 28 id. at 2-3.) According to petitioner, the minors remember very few details about the 1 incident, and their parents incurred most of the harm. (Id. at 9.) 2 In September 2016, plaintiffs and defendants reached a settlement on some claims; 3 that settlement was approved by Judge Curiel on September 26, 2016. (ECF No. 370, 4 at 3-4.) On December 12, 2019, the parties reached a settlement as to the remaining claims. 5 (Id. at 5.) Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Confirm the Minors’ Compromise provides that 6 the four minor children will each receive $50,000, made payable to Pacific Life & Annuity 7 Services, Inc., to fund future periodic payments. (ECF No. 370, at 10.) These payments 8 start when each minor turns 18. (See ECF No. 370-2, at 2; ECF No. 370-3, at 2; 9 ECF No. 370-4, at 2; ECF No. 370-5, at 2.) The total payout to each minor plaintiff will 10 be: 11 1. N.G.P.M. - $65,946.28 12 2. M.N.A.M. - $71,859.21 13 3. M.C.G.M. - $71,859.21 14 4. N.E.H.M. - $71,859.21 15 (ECF No. 370, at 8-9.) 16 DISCUSSION 17 District courts have “a special duty” to “safeguard the interests of litigants who are 18 minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). In the settlement 19 context, that duty requires the court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the 20 settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. (citations omitted). The Court is 21 required to limit the scope of its review to “whether the net amount distributed to each 22 minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the 23 minors’ specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1182. “Most importantly, the 24 district court should evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without 25 regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or 26 plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. 27 Having reviewed the complaint and the parties’ briefing, the Court is intimately 28 familiar with this case’s facts and legal issues. With that experience in mind, the Court 1 || recognizes that litigation is always uncertain and concludes that the proposed settlement is 2 || fair, reasonable, and in the minors’ best interests. 3 Moreover, the minors’ recovery in this case is reasonable in light of those approved 4 |lin similar cases. See, e.g., B.R. v. Cty. of Orange, No. 8:15-cv-00626-CJC-PJW, ECF 5 84, at 2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018) (approving $50,000 settlement for minor who was 6 ||removed from mother’s custody without cause, but suffered no injury); Bruno v. Cty. of 7 || Los Angeles, No. SACV 17-01301-CJC(VJEx), ECF No. 71, at 4, 8 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2019) 8 || (approving a settlement of $60,000 per minor for minors who were removed from their 9 || parents’ custody and subjected to medical examinations and vaccinations without a warrant 10 parental consent); Xoss v. Cty. of Los Angeles, No. 2:12-cv-1400-PSG-RZ, ECF 11 150, at 2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2014) (approving total settlement of $122,959.80 for two 12 minors who were removed from their parents’ custody without a warrant). 13 Accordingly, the Court recommends: 14 1. The motion to approve the settlement be GRANTED. 15 2. The compromise and settlement of the claims of the minors N.G.P.M., M.N.A.M., 16 M.C.G.M., and N.E.H.M. be approved as fair and reasonable and in the best interests 17 of the minor plaintiffs. 18 Any objections to this report and recommendation are due by March 10, 2020. See 19 || 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of being 20 || served with it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 21 Dated: February 25, 2020 22 — 73 Hon. ndrew G. Schopler United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28