1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CV 20-6245-RSWL-AS x 12 S.C., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad ORDER re: Petition for 13 Litem Edgar Chang; EDGAR Approval of Minor’s CHANG; and SOPHIA CHANG, 14 Compromise Plaintiffs, 15 16 v. 17 ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, 18 19 Defendants. 20 21 Plaintiffs S.C., by and through his guardian ad 22 litem Edgar Chang; Edgar Chang; and Sophia Chang 23 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring the instant personal 24 injury action against Defendant Alaska Airlines, Inc. 25 (“Defendant”). Currently before the Court is Plaintiff 26 S.C.’s Sealed Petition for Approval of Minor’s 27 Compromise (the “Petition”) [30]. The Court GRANTS the 28 Petition. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Factual Background

3 Plaintiff S.C. is a minor who was eleven years old 4 at the time of the incident giving rise to this Action. 5 Notice of Removal Ex. A, at 1-2, ECF No. 1-1. Defendant 6 is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of 7 business in Seattle, Washington. Notice of Removal 8 3:11-12, ECF No. 1. 9 On or about May 17, 2018, Plaintiffs visited 10 Defendant’s Customer Convenience Lounge (“the Lounge”) 11 located on the premises of Los Angeles International 12 Airport. Notice of Removal Ex. A, ¶ 7, ECF No. 1-1. 13 While Plaintiff S.C. was inside the Lounge, someone who 14 appeared to be a member of Defendant’s lounge staff 15 offered him a cookie. Id. ¶ 9. Before accepting the 16 cookie, Plaintiff S.C. allegedly asked the employee if 17 the cookie contained nuts because S.C. is allergic to 18 tree nuts. Id. Defendant’s employee replied that the 19 cookie did not contain nuts. Id. In reliance on that 20 statement, Plaintiff S.C. accepted the cookie and began 21 to eat it, thereby causing him to suffer an immediate 22 and severe allergic reaction. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. 23 As a result of the anaphylactic shock reaction, 24 Plaintiff S.C. suffered “great mental distress, physical 25 pain and suffering.” Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff S.C. alleges 26 that Defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of 27 his injury and that, as a result of the incident, 28 Plaintiff S.C. incurred medical and incidental expenses. 1 Id. ¶¶ 1, 13.

2 B. Procedural Background

3 On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff S.C. filed his 4 Complaint [1-1] in the Superior Court of California, 5 County of Los Angeles. Defendant removed [1] this 6 Action to federal court on July 14. Plaintiff S.C. 7 filed the instant Petition [30] on April 23, 2021, and 8 Defendant filed a Statement of Non-Opposition [32] on 9 April 29. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 A. Legal Standard 12 “District courts have a special duty, derived from 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to safeguard the 14 interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. 15 Rosengren,

(9th Cir. 2011). Thus, 16 a district court “must independently investigate and 17 evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s 18 claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are 19 protected, even if the settlement has been recommended 20 or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad 21 litem.” Salmeron v. United States,

, 1363 22 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). In addition, this 23 district’s Local Rules provide that “[n]o claim in any 24 action involving a minor or incompetent person shall be 25 settled, compromised, or dismissed without leave of the 26 Court embodied in an order, judgment, or decree.” L.R. 27 17-1.2. 28 1 B. Analysis 2 Plaintiff S.C., through his guardian ad litem, has

3 agreed to settle his claims against Defendant relating 4 to the subject incident in consideration of a lump-sum 5 payment of $15,000.00. Unopposed Pet. for Approval of 6 Minor’s Compromise (“Pet.”) 3, ECF No. 30. Of the 7 $15,0000.00 gross settlement, $3,750.00 would be 8 allocated to attorney’s fees, and $1,361.16 would be 9 allocated to litigation costs. Id. at 5-6. After these 10 deductions, Plaintiff would receive a net settlement 11 amount of $9,888.84. Id. at 5-6. 12 1. The Proposed Settlement 13 The Ninth Circuit clarified that, in cases 14 involving the settlement of a minor’s federal claims, 15 district courts should “limit the scope of their review 16 to the question whether the net amount distributed to 17 each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and 18 reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the 19 minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases . 20 . . without regard to the proportion of the total 21 settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or 22 plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court 23 has no special duty to safeguard.” Robidoux,

at 1181–82 (citing Dacanay v. Mendoza,

, 25 1078 (9th Cir. 1978)). “So long as the net recovery to 26 each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of 27 their claims and average recovery in similar cases, the 28 district court should approve the settlement as proposed 1 by the parties.”

. 2 But the Ninth Circuit expressly limited this

3 holding to cases involving the settlement of a minor’s 4 federal claims, noting that it did “not express a view 5 on the proper approach for a federal court to use when 6 sitting in diversity and approving the settlement of a 7 minor’s state law claims.”

at 1179 n.2. Here, the 8 Court is sitting in diversity, and minor Plaintiff 9 S.C.’s cause of action—negligence—is based on state 10 substantive law. Thus, approval of the settlement may 11 be governed by state law rather than the Robidoux 12 standard.1 Under California law, the Court is entrusted 13 with determining whether the compromise is in the best 14 interests of the minor. See Pearson v. Superior Ct., 15

(2012); see also Goldberg 16 v. Superior Ct.,

(1994). 17 Here, the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in 18 19 1 District courts differ on whether Robidoux applies in the context of a minor’s state law claims. Compare Vasquez, No. 20 119CV01610AWISAB,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2021) 21 (applying Robidoux to settlement of minor’s state law claims), Mugglebee v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 14-CV-2474 JLS (JMA),

1410718, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2018) (same), and Arriaga ex. Rel. Bryson v. Target Corp., No. CIV. S–10–1167 LKK/KJM,

1720503, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2012) (same), with Popal v. Nat’l Passenger R.R. Corp., No. 15-cv-00553-JSW (KAW),

9114149, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2016) (applying state law to settlement of state claims), and Chance v. Prudential Ins. Co. of 25 Am., No. 1:15-cv-01889-DAD-JLT,

, at *2 & n.4 26 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2016) (same). In this Action, however, the Court need not determine whether Robidoux or state law applies 27 because the outcome under either is the same. 28 1 Plaintiff’s best interests considering the facts and

2 circumstances of this Action. The settlement provides

3 certain recovery as opposed to the uncertainty of 4 continued litigation. Although Plaintiff suffered an 5 anaphylactic reaction as a result of the incident, he 6 did not sustain any permanent physical injuries. 7 Furthermore, the record does not indicate that Plaintiff 8 has sought treatment for any other physical or emotional 9 injuries related to the incident. 10 Although Plaintiff has not identified any similar 11 actions to support the approval of the compromise, the 12 Court finds the recovery appropriate in light of those 13 received by minors in similar actions. See, e.g., 14 Motlagh v. Macy’s Corp. Servs., Inc., No. 19-CV-00042- 15 JLB,

, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2020) 16 (finding fair and reasonable a net settlement of 17 $6,952.19 for personal injury claims of a minor that 18 sustained physical injuries, including lacerations, 19 abrasions, and contusions); M.W. v. Safeway, Inc., No. 20 2:18-cv-01404-BAT,

, at *6-7 (W.D. Wash. 21 Sept. 19, 2019) (finding, under Washington’s comparable 22 standard, a net settlement of $5,024.77 for personal 23 injury claims of a minor that suffered a headache after 24 the incident—but did not suffer headaches beyond the 25 immediate time of the incident—to be fair and 26 reasonable); Progressive N. Ins. Grp. V. Perry, No. 27 317CV00725MMDWGC,

at *2-3(D. Nev. Oct. 28 19, 2018) (finding, under Nevada’s comparable standard, 1 a net settlement of $8,685.50 for personal injury claims

2 of a minor plaintiff where the minor was discharged from

3 the hospital without any recommended follow-up care to 4 be fair and reasonable). 5 Based upon a consideration of the facts, Plaintiff 6 S.C.’s claim, and the court-approved settlements in 7 other cases, the Court concludes that the settlement and 8 Plaintiff S.C.’s net recovery of $9,888.84 are fair, 9 reasonable, and in his best interests. 10 2. Procedural Requirements 11 Local Rule 17-1.3 provides that, “[i]nsofar as 12 practicable, hearings on petitions to settle, 13 compromise, or dismiss a claim in an action involving a 14 minor or incompetent person shall conform to Cal. Civ. 15 Proc. Code § 372 and California Rule of Court 3.1384.” 16 L.R. 17-1.3. California Rule of Court 3.1384, in turn, 17 requires a petition for approval of a minor’s compromise 18 to comply with California Rules of Court 7.950 or 19 7.950.5, 7.951, and 7.952. Cal. R. Ct. 3.1384. 20 California Rule of Court 7.950 states that the 21 petition “must be verified by the petitioner” and “must 22 contain a full disclosure of all information that has 23 any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise.” 24 Cal. R. Ct. 7.950. It further requires that the 25 petition “be submitted on a completed Petition for 26 Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition 27 of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a 28 Disability (form MC-350EX),” except as provided in 1 California Rule of Court 7.950.5. Id. Here, Plaintiff 2 S.C. has complied with these requirements by submitting

3 a completed form MC-350EX verified by Edgar Chang, the 4 petitioner and Plaintiff S.C.’s guardian ad litem. See

. The Petition and accompanying documentation 6 provide the requisite information bearing upon 7 reasonableness, including the facts of the case, details 8 about the proposed settlement and its allocation, and 9 information regarding attorney’s fees and litigation 10 costs. 11 California Rule of Court 7.951 mandates disclosure 12 of certain information regarding any attorney who 13 assisted in preparing the petition. See Cal. R. Ct. 14 7.951. The completed form MC-350EX, declaration of 15 Plaintiff S.C.’s counsel, and attached Attorney-Client 16 Agreement provide all required information. 17 California Rule of Court 7.952 requires that both 18 the person petitioning on behalf of the minor and the 19 minor attend the hearing on the petition unless the 20 Court “for good cause dispenses with their personal 21 appearance.” Cal. R. Ct. 7.951. Because the Motion is 22 unopposed and is suitable for decision without oral 23 argument, good cause exists to approve the settlement 24 without a hearing. Accordingly, no appearance is 25 necessary. 26 3. Attorney’s Fees & Litigation Costs 27 Local Rule 17-1.4 requires the Court to fix the 28 amount of attorney’s fees “[i]n all actions involving 1 the claim of a minor . . . whether resolved by

2 settlement or judgment after trial.” L.R. 17-1.4. In

3 all cases under California Code of Civil Procedure § 4 372, the Court “must use a reasonable fee standard when 5 approving and allowing the amount of attorney’s fees 6 payable from money or property paid or to be paid for 7 the benefit of a minor.” Cal. R. Ct. 7.955(a)(1). The 8 Court must also “give consideration to the terms of any 9 representation agreement made between the attorney and 10 the representative of the minor . . . and must evaluate 11 the agreement based on the facts and circumstances 12 existing at the time the agreement was made.” Cal. R. 13 Ct. 7.955(a)(2). In assessing whether the fee is 14 reasonable, the Court may consider fourteen nonexclusive 15 factors. See Cal. R. Ct. 7.955(b). 16 Here, Plaintiff S.C.’s counsel seeks twenty five 17 percent of the gross settlement amount, or $3,750.00, 18 despite the Attorney-Client Agreement that Plaintiff 19 S.C.’s counsel would receive thirty-three and one-third 20 percent of any recovery if the matter resolves prior to 21 the commencement of litigation and forty percent of any 22 such amounts recovered thereafter. See Attach. 15(a) to 23 Pet., ECF No. 30. Plaintiff S.C.’s guardian ad litem 24 has approved the proposed attorney’s fees. Id. The 25 Court concludes that $3,750.00 in attorney’s fees is 26 reasonable considering the efforts expended, the number 27 of hours worked, the results obtained, and counsel’s 28 many years of experience litigating personal injury 1 actions. Id. 2 Plaintiff S.C. also incurred litigation costs in

3 the amount of $1,361.16. See form MC350EX at 5; Attach. 4 15(b) to form MC350EX. Because the $1,361.16 in 5 expenses were directly related to this Action and do not 6 appear to be excessive, the Court finds these costs to 7 likewise be reasonable. 8 4. Disposition of Proceeds 9 Local Rule 17-1.5 provides that “[a]ll monies or 10 property recovered on behalf of a minor . . . , either 11 by settlement or judgment, shall be paid into the 12 registry of the Court unless otherwise ordered by the 13 Court.” L.R. 17-1.5. The net settlement proceeds will 14 be deposited into an interest-bearing, federally insured 15 blocked account owned by minor Plaintiff S.C., to be 16 withdrawn only upon the authorization of the Court until 17 Plaintiff S.C. attains the age of eighteen years. See 18 Order to Deposit Money into Blocked Account ¶¶ 1, 4(a), 19 ECF No. 30-1. The minor Plaintiff S.C.’s account is 20 with Wells Fargo Bank, on East Exchange Parkway in 21 Allen, Texas. See Attach. 20(b)(2) to Pet. 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the 24 Petition and ORDERS as follows: 25 1. The settlement of minor Plaintiff S.C.’s claim 26 against Defendant for payment in the total amount of 27 $15,000.00 is approved. 28 2. Defendant, through its counsel, will prepare 1 and deliver to Plaintiff S.C.’s counsel a check in the

2 amount of $15,000.00 within twenty-one (21) days of the

3 date of this Order. 4 3. From Plaintiff S.C.’s $15,000.00 gross 5 settlement award, Plaintiff S.C.’s counsel may deduct 6 $3,750.00 for attorney’s fees and $1,361.16 for 7 litigation costs. 8 4. Plaintiff S.C.’s counsel will arrange for the 9 deposit of Plaintiff S.C.’s net settlement proceeds, the 10 amount of $9,888.84, into the Plaintiff’s Fargo 11 interest-bearing, federally insured blocked account. 12 Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of Plaintiff S.C.’s 13 net settlement proceeds of $9,888.84, Plaintiff S.C.’s 14 counsel shall file under seal proof to the Court that 15 the monetary amount was deposited and the depository’s 16 acknowledgement of receipt of this Order. 17 5. Plaintiff S.C.’s net settlement proceeds will 18 remain in the account, and no withdrawals of principal 19 or interest may be made from the blocked account without 20 a written order under this case name and number, signed 21 by a judicial officer, and bearing the seal of this 22 Court, until Plaintiff S.C. attains the age of eighteen 23 years. When Plaintiff S.C. attains the age of eighteen 24 years, the depository, without further order of the 25 Court, is authorized and directed to pay by check or 26 draft directly to Plaintiff S.C., upon proper demand, 27 all monies including interest deposited under this 28 Order. 1 6. The parties will file stipulated dismissal

2 documents within sixty days (60) of the entry of this

3 Order. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 DATED: July 20, 2021 _____/s_/ _R_on_a_ld_ S_.W_._ L_ew______________ HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW 7 Senior U.S. District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28