Daigle v. City of Oceanside

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON LEE DAIGLE et al., Case No.: 19-CV-1180-BAS(WVG)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 13 v. PETITION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT INVOLVING A 14 CITY OF OCEANSIDE et al., MINOR 15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 80.] 16 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ unopposed ex parte motion for approval of 20 a settlement involving a minor, R.A.Q. (or “Minor Plaintiff”). Having considered the 21 moving papers, the Court finds the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of 22 the minor. However, Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion is DENIED without prejudice because 23 the attorneys’ fees Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks exceeds the 25% that such fees have 24 historically been limited. The Court will consider a renewed motion that complies with this 25 limitation. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Allegations1 3 Minor Plaintiff’s claim arose out of the (1) alleged the false arrest and alleged 4 mistreatment of her mother, decedent Gwen Daigle, by Oceanside Police Department 5 police officers on October 19, 2018, (2) out of Gwen Daigle’s incarceration and alleged 6 mistreatment by San Diego County deputy sheriffs at the Vista Detention Center on 7 October 20, 2018 pursuant to that arrest, and (3) out of the death of Gwen Daigle from an 8 ischemic stroke suffered by her one year later, on October 6, 2019. 9 R.A.Q. is decedent Gwen Daigle’s, natural and legal daughter and is one of Gwen 10 Daigle’s heirs, along with her half-sister and guardian ad litem, Plaintiff Heather Willow 11 Munsterman, and her half-brother, plaintiff Brandon Daigle. Together, they are the 12 decedent’s biological children and her successors-in-interest. Plaintiff Deborah Carman is 13 decedent Gwen Daigle’s mother. 14 B. The Proposed Settlement and Distribution 15 The parties filed a notice of settlement on November 30, 2021. Since then, the 16 Oceanside City Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors have approved 17 the settlement. The settlement agreement obligates the County of San Diego and the City 18 of Oceanside defendants to pay Plaintiffs and their attorneys of record a total sum of 19 $700,000.00. The parties have agreed to allocate the $700,000.00 settlement as follows: 20 • $175,000.00 (25%) to R.A.Q. and her attorney of record; 21 • $175,000.00 (25%) to plaintiff Brandon Daigle and his attorney of record; 22 • $175,000.00 (25%) to plaintiff Hunter Munsterman and her attorney of record; and 23 • $175,000.00 (25%) to plaintiff Deborah Carman and her attorney of record. 24 25 26 27 1 The factual allegations herein are for background purposes only. They remain allegations 28 1 From each plaintiff, including R.A.Q, Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks to retain $70,000 (or 2 40%) for attorneys’ fees.2 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 17(c), “to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 6 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving 7 minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court to “conduct its own inquiry to 8 determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Dacanay v. 9 Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978); see also Salmeron v. United States, 724 10 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that “a court must independently investigate and 11 evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s 12 interests are protected, even if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the 13 minor’s parent or guardian ad litem”). 14 The Ninth Circuit has also made clear that, in cases involving the settlement of 15 federal claims, district courts should “limit the scope of their review to the question whether 16 the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable in 17 light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases,” and 18 should “evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the 19 proportion of the total settlement value designated for the adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ 20 counsel - whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Robidoux, 21 638 F.3d at 1181-82 (citing Dacany, 573 F.2d at 1078). “So long as the net recovery to 22 each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery in 23 similar cases, the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the parties.” 24 Id. at 1182. 25 26 27 2 In addition, R.A.Q.’s settlement is further reduced by R.A.Q.’s proportional share of 28 1 III. ANALYSIS 2 In light of the facts of the case, the claims brought, and recoveries by similarly 3 situated plaintiffs, the settlement sum to R.A.Q. is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest 4 of the minor. 5 This action commenced on June 24, 2019, and the settlement allows for certainty of 6 recovery for Minor Plaintiff, as opposed to the uncertainty associated with a jury verdict in 7 light of the challenges of proving liability for the decedent’s death given that it occurred a 8 year after her incarceration. R.A.Q’s damages injuries case arise from (1) the injuries 9 allegedly suffered by plaintiff’s decedent, Gwen Daigle, during her alleged false arrest on 10 October 19, 2018, (2) the injuries allegedly suffered by Gwen Daigle during her overnight 11 incarceration at the Vista Detention Center, and (3) for Gwen Daigle’s death on October 6, 12 2019—one year after she was released from custody. Of these three claims, the claim most 13 likely to actually succeed at trial was the claims for the false arrest and physical 14 mistreatment of Gwen Daigle by Oceanside Police Department officers and the failure to 15 provide medical care by the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department jail staff. However, 16 Plaintiffs admit that because Gwen Daigle passed away one year after she was released 17 from custody, it would be difficult to prove some sort of causal connection between the 18 alleged wrongful acts of the Oceanside and San Diego County defendants and her death a 19 year later. Accordingly, the majority of the likely provable damages to be obtained by 20 R.A.Q. are for the alleged physical injury and the alleged pain and suffering suffered by 21 Gwen Daigle pursuant to her false arrest and physical and mental claims—essentially 22 general damages for personal injury. As a result, the settlement is eminently reasonable 23 given the nature of the actual provable claims in this case. 24 Furthermore, although the motion does not identify any cases involving 25 circumstances similar to those alleged in the matter at bar, the Court performed its own 26 review of the case law and finds that Minor Plaintiff’s net recovery to be fair and reasonable 27 under the circumstances. See, e.g., Napier v. San Diego Cnty., 2017 WL 5759803 (S.D. 28 Cal. Nov. 28, 2017) (finding settlement of minor’s claims against San Diego County for 1 the death of his father for $41,125 fair and reasonable; Swayzer v. City of San Jose, 2011 2 WL 3471217, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011) (finding settlement of minor's section 1983 3 claims against the City for $2,054.17 fair and reasonable); Doe ex rel. Scott v. Gill, 2012 4 WL 1939612, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012) (finding settlement of minor's section 1983 5 claims for the death of her mother for $7,188 fair and reasonable); Armstrong v. Dossey, 6 2013 WL 4676541, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2013) (finding settlement of minors’ § 1983 7 claims for their father's death for $22,500 for minor); Frary v. Cnty. of Marin, 2015 WL 8 575818 (N.D. Cal. Feb 10, 2015) (finding settlement of minor’s § 1983 and negligence 9 claims for a net recovery of $73,844.39 fair and reasonable); Lobaton v. City of San Diego, 10 2017 WL 2610038, at *3 (finding settlement of minor's emotional distress and negligent 11 infliction of emotional distress claims for $10,000.00 fair and reasonable.). 12 The method of disbursement also appears to be fair and reasonable. The proceeds of 13 the settlement will be sequestered in a blocked bank account, which will distributed to the 14 Minor Plaintiff once she reaches the age of 18. R.A.Q. is now 15 years old, and a delay of 15 three years before R.A.Q. can access the funds is not unreasonable. 16 However, “[i]n addition to assessing whether the settlement is fair and reasonable, 17 the Court must approve the attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid for representation of a 18 minor.” R.T.B. v. United States, No. 19CV2305-W(KSC), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244745, 19 at *15 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2021). And despite counsel’s declaration that no 25% limit to 20 fees exists, “[i]n contingency fee cases, attorneys’ fees for representing a minor historically 21 have been limited to 25% of the gross recovery.” Id. (citing multiple cases). “[M]ost courts 22 require[] a showing of good cause to award more than 25% of any recovery and such an 23 award is rare and justified only when counsel proves that he or she provided extraordinary 24 services.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Here, despite having the 25 opportunity, counsel has not made a showing that the 40% in fees counsel seeks from 26 R.A.Q.’s share of the settlement are justified. As a result, the Court declines to approve the 27 overall structure of the minor’s comprise as it currently stands. 28 / / / 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the ex parte motion without 3 || prejudice. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. > Dated: January 31, 2022 | | Se Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28