1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J.A., No. 2:23-cv-00675-DC-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF A MINOR 14 COUNTY OF SHASTA, et al. (Doc. No. 31) 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff J.A.’s unopposed motion for approval of the 18 settlement of a minor and supplemental brief filed by Plaintiff in support of his motion. (Doc. 19 Nos. 31, 36.) The pending motion was taken under submission to be decided on the papers 20 pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (Doc. No. 35) For the reasons explained below, the court will 21 grant Plaintiff’s motion. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff is a thirteen-year-old male, but he was ten years old at the time of the incident 24 giving rise to this action. (Doc. No. 31-1 at 3.) At approximately 12:11 a.m. on February 14, 25 2022, Plaintiff and his sister V.A. called 911 to report a domestic incident involving two other 26 individuals at their home in Cottonwood, California. (Doc. No. 12 at ¶¶ 13, 15.) Shasta County 27 Sheriff’s Office deputies Justin Meredith and Defendant Issac Lockwood were dispatched to 28 Plaintiff’s home. (Id. at ¶ 15.) The home sits on nearly four acres and has a gated driveway that 1 requires the entry of a code to obtain access. (Id. at ¶ 14.) V.A. told Plaintiff to go outside and 2 open the gate for the deputies. (Id. at ¶ 17.) 3 At approximately 1:24 a.m., Defendant Lockwood and Deputy Meredith arrived at the 4 property. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Defendant Lockwood then approached the closed driveway gate in his 5 patrol vehicle. (Id. at ¶ 21.) At the same time, Plaintiff ran down the driveway toward the gate so 6 he could enter the code and provide the deputies access to the home. (Id. at ¶ 23.) As Plaintiff 7 approached the gate, Defendant Lockwood allegedly exited his patrol vehicle and instantly fired 8 his weapon at Plaintiff without first providing any identification of himself as a peace officer 9 and/or warning that deadly force may be used against Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 24.) After the shot was 10 fired, Defendant Lockwood and/or Deputy Meredith yelled, “Show me your hands” and shined a 11 flashlight toward Plaintiff to identify him. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Defendant Lockwood and Deputy 12 Meredith found Plaintiff hiding behind the gate in fear for his life. (Id.) 13 As a result of the incident, Plaintiff alleges he suffered psychological and sustained 14 emotional distress, including anxiety, difficulty sleeping, fear, and a disrupted sense of safety. 15 (Doc. Nos. 12 at ¶ 26; 31-1 at 5.) Plaintiff’s academic grades also suffered for 6 to 12 months 16 following the incident, and he wanted to be near his parents far more frequently than prior to the 17 shooting. (Doc. 31-1 at 5.) 18 Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint on April 10, 2023. (Doc. No. 1.) On 19 June 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants asserting 20 federal civil rights and state law causes of action. (Doc. No. 12.) The parties attended mediation 21 on November 18, 2024, and a resolution was reached to resolve the case. (Doc. No. 31-2 at ¶ 5.) 22 On November 25, 2024, the parties filed a notice of settlement pending approval of a minor’s 23 compromise. (Doc. No. 29.) 24 Plaintiff filed the pending motion for approval of Plaintiff’s settlement on December 19, 25 2024. (Doc. No. 31.) Plaintiff asserts the proposed settlement would resolve all claims brought by 26 Plaintiff against Defendants. (Doc. No. 31-1 at 4.) On December 20, 2024, Defendants filed a 27 statement of non-opposition to the motion. (Doc. No. 32.) On January 15, 2025, the court issued 28 an order noting Plaintiff’s motion did not satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 202(c) and did 1 not cite any examples of recoveries in similar cases demonstrating the suitability of the settlement 2 amount. (Doc. No. 35 at 3.) The court ordered Plaintiff to provide a supplemental brief and 3 declaration addressing those deficiencies. (Id. at 4.) On January 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a 4 supplemental brief in response to the court’s order. (Doc. No. 36.) 5 LEGAL STANDARD 6 This court has a duty to protect the interests of minors participating in litigation before it. 7 Salmeron v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1983); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2) 8 (requiring the court to “appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to 9 protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.”). This duty requires a 10 district court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best 11 interests of the minor.” Robidoux v. Rosengren,

(9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 12 Dacanay v. Mendoza,

(9th Cir. 1978)). In examining the fairness of a 13 settlement of a minor’s claims, the Ninth Circuit has held that a district court should focus on 14 “whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and 15 reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar 16 cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82.1 17 In addition, the Local Rules of this court require a motion for approval of a proposed 18 minor’s compromise to disclose, among other things: (1) the age and sex of the minor; (2) the 19 nature of the causes of action to be settled or compromised; (3) the facts and circumstances out of 20 which the causes of action arose, including the time, place, and persons involved; (4) the manner 21 in which the compromise amount or other consideration was determined, including such 22 additional information as may be required to enable the court to determine the fairness of the 23 settlement or compromise amount; and (5) if the minor has a personal injury claim, the nature and 24 extent of the injury with sufficient particularity to inform the court whether the injury is

25 1 Plaintiff brings four state law claims against Defendants. (Doc. No. 12 at 1–2, 16–23.) Although the Ninth Circuit expressly limited its holding to “cases involving the settlement of a minor’s 26 federal claims,” Robidoux,

n.2, where as here, a court is exercising supplemental 27 jurisdiction over state law claims, courts apply the Robidoux standard to all of the claims. See A.G.A. v. Cnty. of Riverside, No. 19-cv-00077-VAP-SP,

, at *3 n. 1 (C.D. Cal. 28 Apr. 26, 2019) (collecting cases). 1 temporary or permanent. See L.R. 202(b)(2). 2 Under Local Rule 202(c), “[w]hen the minor or incompetent is represented by an attorney, 3 it shall be disclosed to the [c]ourt by whom and the terms under which the attorney was 4 employed; whether the attorney became involved in the application at the instance of the party 5 against whom the causes of action are asserted, directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands 6 in any relationship to that party; and whether the attorney has received or expects to receive any 7 compensation, from whom, and the amount.” Local Rule 202 also provides guidelines regarding 8 the disbursement of money to minors. L.R. 202(e). Money or property recovered on behalf of a 9 minor will be: (1) disbursed to the representative pursuant to state law upon a showing that the 10 representative is duly qualified under state law, (2) disbursed otherwise pursuant to state law, or 11 (3) disbursed pursuant to such other order as the court deems proper for the protection of the 12 minor. (Id.) 13 DISCUSSION 14 Under the settlement agreement in this case, Plaintiff will receive $67,584.40 of the total 15 $95,000.00 amount offered to settle Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. No. 31-1 at 9.) Plaintiff provides the 16 information required by Local Rule 202(b) and (c), namely Plaintiff’s age and sex, the nature of 17 the causes of action to be settled against Defendants, the facts out of which the causes of action 18 arose, the manner in which the settlement amount was determined, and details regarding the terms 19 of employment of Plaintiff’s attorney in this action. (Doc. Nos. 31-1 at 3–6; 31-2; 36 at 1.) 20 In his supplemental brief, Plaintiff notes the difficulty in identifying directly analogous 21 cases involving a minor who was shot at by police, suffered only emotional distress damages, and 22 showed significant improvement over time. (Doc. No. 36 at 2.) However, Plaintiff identifies 23 comparable cases where minors either sustained no injury or minor injuries and emotional distress 24 with no treatment or ongoing distress. (Id. at 2–4.) The court finds Plaintiff’s cited cases are 25 comparable to this action and support the reasonableness of the settlement in this case. Further, 26 based on the court’s independent research, the court finds the net recovery in this case is in line 27 with similar minor compromises that involve police interactions that result in the emotional 28 distress of a minor plaintiff. See Chavez v. City of Porterville, No. 22-cv-00794-ADA-SKO, 2023

, at *1, 3–4 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2023) findings and recommendations adopted, 2023

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2023) (finding a $200,000 settlement of four minor plaintiffs’ 3 claims against police officers appropriate when officers were alleged to enter the children’s home 4 without a warrant, pointed a gun at a minor plaintiff, assaulted their mother, and did not permit 5 the minor plaintiffs to leave the premise); Vasquez v. Cty. of Stanislaus, No. 19-cv-01610-AWI- 6 SAB,

, at *4–7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2021) (approving a net recovery of $7,500 7 for claims alleging that the minor plaintiff witnessed excessive force against his father and 8 suffered emotional distress, but ultimately sustained no permanent injuries); Red v. Merced Cnty., 9 No. 06-cv-01003-GSA,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (approving a 10 $20,000.00 settlement where the minor plaintiff was ordered out of the house at gunpoint by law 11 enforcement). 12 In addition, Plaintiff provides several reasons why a net recovery of $67,584.40 for 13 Plaintiff is fair and reasonable, all of which the court finds persuasive. First, Plaintiff contends the 14 settlement is fair given he was not physically injured, any emotional injuries he sustained were 15 temporary, and he has since recovered. (Doc. No. 31-1 at 5–6.) Next, Plaintiff argues the 16 settlement is reasonable due to the concern Defendants may prevail on summary judgment based 17 on the defense of qualified immunity. (Doc. No. 36 at 4–5.) Plaintiff also asserts he wishes to 18 settle this case to avoid the stress and uncertainty of trial and to not have to relieve the incident in 19 a courtroom setting. (Doc. No. 31-1 at 6.) Based on the court’s review of Plaintiff’s case, the 20 court concludes the settlement amount is fair and reasonable.2 21 Lastly, the proposed method of disbursing the settlement also appears to be fair and 22 reasonable under Local Rule 202(e). Pursuant to the settlement agreement, within seven days 23 following receipt of the settlement funds, Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem and mother, Gayle 24 Adelman shall open an interest bearing “Blocked Account,” in Plaintiff’s true name at

25 2 In addition, the court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel requests $4,887.46 for costs incurred in litigating this case and attorneys’ fees in the amount of 25% of the settlement agreement after 26 costs ($22,528.14) based on a minor’s contingent fee agreement. (Doc. No. 31-1 at 7–9.) Under 27 Robidoux, this court’s focus is limited to whether the net recovery of the minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable, without regard to what the minor plaintiff agreed to pay his counsel.

1182. 1 Cornerstone Community Bank, Anderson Branch, located at 2727 Ventura Street, Anderson, 2 California 96007, and shall deposit the settlement funds in said account. (Doc. No. 31-1 at 9.) 3 Prior to the date on which Plaintiff attains the age of majority, no withdrawal of the settlement 4 funds shall be made from the Blocked Account except as authorized by further order of the court. 5 (Id. at 9–10.) The court finds this proposed disbursement plan is appropriate and in the interest of 6 Plaintiff. See Parson v. City of Bakersfield, No. 07-cv-01468-OWW-DLB,

, at 7 *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2009) (approving disbursement plan depositing payment to minor into 8 insured account subject to withdrawal only upon authorization of the court until reaching the age 9 of eighteen); Williams v. Cnty. of Monterey, No. 19-cv-01811-BLF,

, at *1–2 10 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2020) (collecting cases noting that “district courts within the Ninth Circuit 11 commonly order that such funds be deposited into a blocked account for the minor’s benefit”). As 12 such, the method of disbursement of funds satisfies Local Rule 202(e). 13 Accordingly, the court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for approval of his settlement. 14 CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons explained above: 16 1. Plaintiff’s motion for approval of settlement of a minor (Doc. No. 31) is 17 GRANTED; 18 a. The $95,000 gross settlement to Plaintiff J.A. arising out of the February 19 14, 2022, incident is fair and equitable; 20 b. The payment of attorneys’ fees and costs as provided in Plaintiff’s motion 21 for approval of settlement of a minor is fair and equitable; and 22 c. The net settlement funds of $67,584.40 shall be disbursed as specified in 23 Plaintiff’s proposed order (Doc. No. 31-3 at 2–3); 24 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to seal Document No. 31-2, which is the 25 Declaration of Estee Lewis3; 26

27 3 It has come to the court’s attention that minor Plaintiff J.A.’s full name is stated on the first page of the minor’s contingent fee agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Estee 28 Lewis (Doc. No. 31-2 at 6). 1 3, Within ten (10) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall filed a redacted 2 version of the Declaration of Estee Lewis that redacts Plaintiff's name from the 3 first page of Exhibit A; and 4 4. The parties shall file dispositional documents by no later than fourteen (14) days 5 from the date of entry of this order. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ g | Dated: _ February 24, 2025 EIU os Dena Coggins 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28