1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 RENEE KLEP, individually and as No. 2:23-cv-274 WBS SCR successor-in-interest to 13 DARIN KLEP, Decedent; A.K. a minor by her Guardian Ad Litem, 14 RENEE KLEP; ORDER APPROVING MINOR’S COMPROMISE 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 COUNTY OF SISKIYOU, a municipal entity; CITY OF MT. SHASTA, a 18 municipal entity; CHRIS STOCK, an individual; RICHARD EVANS, an 19 individual; WALTER MOORE, an individual; and JUAN CASANOVA, 20 an individual; 21 Defendants. 22 23 ----oo0oo---- 24 Plaintiffs Renee Klep and her daughter Ayla Klep 25 (“A.K.”) brought this suit against the County of Siskiyou, the 26 City of Mt. Shasta, and four law enforcement officers 27 (collectively, “defendants”) following the shooting of decedent 28 Darin Klep. (See Compl. ¶¶ 1-8, 13-27 (Docket No. 1).) The 1 court previously appointed Renee Klep as A.K.’s guardian ad 2 litem. (Docket No. 4.) After the parties settled for a total of 3 $250,000.00, A.K., by and through her guardian ad litem and 4 mother Renee Klep, moved for approval of the compromise of her 5 claims. (Docket No. 36.) Defendants do not oppose the instant 6 motion. (Docket Nos. 37-38.) The court held a hearing on the 7 motion on June 9, 2025. (Docket No. 39.) 8 The settlement of the claims of a minor is subject to 9 approval by the court. See L.R. 202(b). The party moving for 10 approval of the settlement must provide the court “information as 11 may be required to enable the [c]ourt to determine the fairness 12 of the settlement or compromise.” See id.(b)(2); see also 13 Robidoux v. Rosengren,

(9th Cir. 2011) 14 (directing district courts “to safeguard the interests of minor 15 plaintiffs” by “determin[ing] whether the net amount distributed 16 to each minor plaintiff in the proposed settlement is fair and 17 reasonable”). District courts must “limit the scope of their 18 review to the question whether the net amount distributed to each 19 minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in 20 light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and 21 recovery in similar cases.”

. 22 Under the proposed settlement, A.K. will receive a 23 gross amount of $50,000.00. (Decl. of Philip J. Kaplan (“Kaplan 24 Decl.”) ¶ 27 (Docket No. 36 at 11-18).) Plaintiffs’ prior 25 counsel, Nadrich & Cohen (“N & C”), and current counsel, the Law 26 Offices of Philip J. Kaplan (“Kaplan”), will collectively receive 27 $12,500.00 in total attorney’s fees from A.K.’s share, which will 28 be split among them such that N & C receives $5,000.00, and 1 Kaplan receives $7,500.00. (Id. ¶ 28.) A.K. will therefore 2 receive a net amount of $38,500.00. (Id. ¶¶ 27-28.) 3 Renee Klep will receive $200,000.00 in gross recovery. 4 (Id. ¶ 27.) From that amount, N & C will receive $32,000.00 in 5 attorneys’ fees, and Kaplan will receive $48,000.00 in attorney’s 6 fees. (Id. ¶ 28.) In addition, $39,219.01 for costs and 7 expenses will be assessed against only Renee Klep’s share, 8 leaving her with a net amount of $80,780.99. (Id. ¶¶ 29-30.) 9 The court, after considering all of the relevant 10 submissions, finds that this settlement is “fair, reasonable, and 11 in the best interest” of A.K. See Popp v. United States, No. 12 1:23-cv-1221 WBS EPG,

, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 13 2025). The settlement is for a substantial sum, considering the 14 injuries allegedly suffered by the minor plaintiff, and it is not 15 certain that plaintiffs would recover that amount against 16 defendants if the case proceeded to trial. (See Kaplan Decl. 17 ¶¶ 18-22.) 18 The court notes that the total amount plaintiffs’ 19 counsel will receive as attorneys’ fees from A.K.’s share amounts 20 to 25% of her recovery, which is the “benchmark” for attorneys’ 21 fees in contingency cases involving minors in the Eastern 22 District of California. See Chance v. Prudential Ins. Co. of 23 Am., No. 1:15-cv-1889 DAD JLT,

, at *2-3 (E.D. 24 Cal. June 29, 2016) (collecting cases). 25 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for approval of 26 minor’s compromise (Docket No. 36) be, and the same hereby is, 27 GRANTED. 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 1 1. The total settlement in the amount of $250,000.00, with 2 gross settlement proceeds of $200,000.00 allocated to Renee Klep, 3 and $50,000.00 to A.K., is approved. 4 2. A twenty-five percent (25%) contingency fee on the 5 $50,000.00 allocated to A.K. ($12,500.00) is approved. 6 3. From settlement funds received by Kaplan, plaintiffs’ 7 current counsel, Kaplan is directed to disburse from its trust 8 account the following sum as directed herein: 9 (a) $38,500.00 to be deposited into a blocked bank 10 account insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 11 until the minor reaches majority at Chase Bank, 974 Dana Drive, 12 Redding, CA 96003, in the name of “Renee Klep, as guardian ad 13 litem of Ayla Klep.” 14 (b) Within forty-eight (48) hours of settlement funds 15 clearing the trust account of the Law Offices of Philip J. 16 Kaplan, Renee Klep and/or Kaplan must deposit the amount of 17 $38,500.00 into the blocked account as set forth herein. 18 (c) Renee Klep and/or Kaplan must deliver to the 19 depository of the above funds, Chase Bank, a copy of this Order. 20 Renee Klep and/or Kaplan are to place the balance in the blocked 21 account and to file a copy of the receipt with this court within 22 fifteen (15) days of the deposit. 23 (d) The proceeds of settlement or judgment deposited 24 in the blocked account belonging to a minor, as described above, 25 may be withdrawn only as follows: No withdrawals of principal or 26 interest may be made from the blocked account without a further 27 written order under this case name and number, signed by a 28 judicial officer, and bearing the seal of this court, until the ee EI I EIEN I OS IE OE

1 minor attains the age of eighteen (18) years. When the 2 individual minor named herein attains the age of 18 years, the 3 depository, without further order of this court, is authorized 4 and directed to pay by check or draft directly to the former 5 | minor, upon proper demand, all moneys including interest 6 deposited under this order. The money on deposit is not subject 7 to escheat. 8 2, Renee Klep is authorized to execute any and all 9 documents reasonably necessary to carry out the terms of the 10 settlement. 11 3. Bond is not required. (See Docket No. 36-1.) 12 4, The parties are directed to file disposition documents 13 | within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. 14 | Dated: June 10, 2025 bet¢ ak. 1d 15 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28