1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTATE OF MICHAEL PRINCE, et al., No. 2:24-cv-00992-DC-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING APPROVAL OF MINORS’ COMPROMISE 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., (Doc. No. 56) 15 Defendants.

16 17 18 This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for approval of the 19 settlement of the minor plaintiffs in this action. (Doc. No. 56.) The pending motion was taken 20 under submission to be decided on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (Doc. No. 59.) For 21 the reasons explained below, the court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion. 22 BACKGROUND 23 This case arises from the death of decedent Michael Prince on July 8, 2023 due to a 24 fentanyl overdose while he was incarcerated as a pretrial detainee at the Sacramento County jail. 25 (Doc. No. 1.) Decedent’s estate (Plaintiff Estate of Michael Prince), his mother (Plaintiff Valerie 26 Prince), his wife (Plaintiff Sophia Costello), and his six children (Plaintiffs Elano Costello, 27 Donny Costello, Michael Costello, Isaiah Costello, D.C., and J.C.) brought this action on April 2, 28 2024, alleging deliberate indifference and negligence by jail custodial staff and medical 1 personnel.1 (Id.) In their operative first amended complaint, Plaintiffs assert the following ten 2 claims (i) deliberate indifference; (ii) failure to accommodate disability in violation of the 3 Americans with Disabilities Act; (iii) failure to accommodate disability in violation of the 4 Rehabilitation Act; (iv) unwarranted interference with familial association in violation of the 5 Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (v) unwarranted interference with familial 6 association in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (vi) failure to summon 7 medical care; (vii) violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act; (viii) intentional infliction of 8 emotional distress; (ix) negligence; (x) wrongful death. (Doc. No. 30.) 9 The parties participated in settlement conferences with the assigned magistrate judge on 10 October 21, 2024, May 28, 2025, and June 6, 2025, and ultimately settled this case. (Doc. Nos. 11 29, 54, 55.) At the time the settlement was reached on June 6, 2025, decedent’s biological 12 daughter Plaintiff D.C. was 17 years old, and decedent’s biological son J.C. was 15 years old, 13 thereby requiring court approval of their compromise in this action. (Doc. Nos. 30 at 3; 58-1 at 14 14.) 15 Plaintiffs filed the pending unopposed motion for approval of the compromise of Plaintiffs 16 D.C. and J.C. (“Minor Plaintiffs”) on June 20, 2025. (Doc. No. 45.) 17 LEGAL STANDARD 18 This court has a duty to protect the interests of minors participating in litigation before it. 19 Salmeron v. United States,

, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2) 20 (requiring the court to “appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to 21 protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.”). This duty requires a 22 district court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best 23 interests of the minor.” Robidoux v. Rosengren,

, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 24 Dacanay v. Mendoza,

(9th Cir. 1978)). In examining the fairness of a 25 settlement of a minor’s claims, the Ninth Circuit has held that a district court should focus on 26

27 1 Plaintiffs Michael Costello and Isaiah Costello were minors at the time this action was filed, but they were no longer minors at the time the parties reached a settlement of this case in June 2025. 28 (See Doc. No. 56-1 at 12.) 1 “whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and 2 reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar 3 cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82.2 4 In addition, the Local Rules of this court require a motion for approval of a proposed 5 minor’s compromise to disclose, among other things: (1) the age and sex of the minor; (2) the 6 nature of the causes of action to be settled or compromised; (3) the facts and circumstances out of 7 which the causes of action arose, including the time, place, and persons involved; (4) the manner 8 in which the compromise amount or other consideration was determined, including such 9 additional information as may be required to enable the court to determine the fairness of the 10 settlement or compromise amount; and (5) if the minor has a personal injury claim, the nature and 11 extent of the injury with sufficient particularity to inform the court whether the injury is 12 temporary or permanent. See L.R. 202(b)(2). 13 Further, under Local Rule 202(c), 14 [w]hen the minor or incompetent is represented by an attorney, it shall be disclosed to the [c]ourt by whom and the terms under which 15 the attorney was employed; whether the attorney became involved in the application at the instance of the party against whom the causes 16 of action are asserted, directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands in any relationship to that party; and whether the attorney has 17 received or expects to receive any compensation, from whom, and the amount. 18 19 Local Rule 202 also provides guidelines regarding the disbursement of money to minors. 20 L.R. 202(e). Money or property recovered on behalf of a minor will be: (1) disbursed to the 21 representative pursuant to state law upon a showing that the representative is duly qualified under 22 state law, (2) disbursed otherwise pursuant to state law, or (3) disbursed pursuant to such other 23 order as the court deems proper for the protection of the minor. (Id.) 24 /////

25 2 Plaintiffs bring several state law claims against Defendants in addition to their federal claims. (Doc. No. 30.) Although the Ninth Circuit expressly limited its holding to “cases involving the 26 settlement of a minor’s federal claims,” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1179 n.2, where as here, a court is 27 exercising supplemental 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,

, 28 at *3 n. 1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2019) (collecting cases). 1 ANALYSIS 2 Under the terms of the parties’ settlement to resolve this entire action, Defendants have 3 agreed to pay a gross settlement amount of $695,000.00, which will be divided equally among all 4 nine Plaintiffs after deduction of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees (25% of settlement amount).3 (Doc. 5 No. 56-1 at 13–14.) Thus, the recovery per plaintiff before deduction of attorneys’ fees is 6 $77,222.22, and the net recovery per plaintiff after deduction of attorneys’ fees is $57,916.67. (Id. 7 at 15.) The parties’ settlement further provides that the Minor Plaintiffs’ recovery share “will be 8 deposited into a blocked account for future payments when they reach the age of 18.” (Id.) 9 In their motion, Plaintiffs provide the information required by Local Rule 202(b) and (c), 10 namely the Minor Plaintiffs ages and sex, the nature of the causes of action to be settled against 11 Defendants, the facts out of which the causes of action arose, the manner in which the settlement 12 amount was determined, and details regarding the terms of employment of Plaintiffs’ attorney in 13 this action. (Id. at 4–13, 15–16.) Specifically, Minor Plaintiffs have been represented by 14 Attorneys Mark E. Merin and Paul Hajime Masuhara, III, of the Law Office of Mark E. Merin, 15 since November 2023, Minor Plaintiffs’ retainer agreement provides for a contingency fee of 16 25% of any recovery on behalf of a minor in this case. (Id. at 15.) Accordingly, Minor Plaintiffs’ 17 counsel will receive $19,305.55 from each of the Minor Plaintiffs’ portions of the settlement. (Id. 18 at 16.) Further, the Law Office of Mark E. Merin “did not become involved in this matter at the 19 insistence of any party against whom a claim is asserted and they have not received any 20 compensation for their services to date.” (Id.) 21 As shown in the pending motion, the net recovery amount of $57,916.67 is comparable 22 “to recoveries by minor plaintiffs in similar cases involving deliberate indifference to the medical 23 needs of an incarcerated parent resulting in death.” (Id. at 16) (citing cases). Plaintiffs also 24 recognize that “[w]hile a loss-of-parent is a permanent and significant injury, [Minor Plaintiffs’] 25 claims would be difficult to prove based on the nature of decedent’s death (the decedent’s 26

27 3 In the Eastern District of California, attorney’s fees amounting to 25% of the total recovery is considered the benchmark for cases involving minors. Chance v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., No. 28 1:15-cv-01889-DAD-JLT,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2016) (collecting cases). 1 ingestion of illicit substances) and income (the decedent’s income was undocumented through 2 typical sources, such as bank records and tax returns).” (Id. at 15.) Finally, the fact that the parties 3 reached their settlement with the assistance of a magistrate judge through a settlement conference 4 also suggests that the settlement is fair and reasonable. See E.H. v. Cal. Exposition & State Fair, 5 No. 2:22-cv-01844-DAD-DB,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2023); Parenti v. Cnty. 6 of Monterey, No. 14-cv-05481-BLF,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2019) (finding 7 minors’ compromise reasonable where “the parties engaged in extensive negotiations with a 8 magistrate judge to reach settlement”). 9 Having considered the facts of the case, the claims brought by Minor Plaintiffs, and 10 comparable recoveries to minors in similar cases, the court finds the settlement of Minor 11 Plaintiffs’ claims in this case to be fair and reasonable. Further, the court finds Plaintiffs’ proposal 12 of depositing Minor Plaintiffs’ recoveries into blocked accounts for future payments when they 13 reach the age of 18 to be an appropriate plan and in the interest of Minor Plaintiffs. See Williams 14 v. Cnty. of Monterey, No. 19-cv-01811-BLF,

, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 15 2020) (collecting cases noting that “district courts within the Ninth Circuit commonly order that 16 such funds be deposited into a blocked account for the minor’s benefit”). 17 Accordingly, the court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of the compromise of 18 Plaintiffs D.C. and J.C. 19 CONCLUSION 20 For the reasons explained above: 21 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of the settlement Minor Plaintiffs D.C. and J.C. 22 (Doc. No. 56) is GRANTED; 23 2. Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $77,222.22 for each of the Minor 24 Plaintiffs D.C. and J.C. to resolve their claims, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ 25 settlement agreement; 26 3. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall deposit $57,916.67 for Plaintiff D.C. into a blocked 27 account for distribution when she reaches the age of 18; 28 4. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall deposit $57,916.67 for Plaintiff J.C. into a blocked 1 account for distribution when he reaches the age of 18; and 2 5. The parties shall file dispositional documents by no later than fourteen (14) days 3 from the date of entry of this order. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 7 | Dated: _ August 22, 2025 EQUI Os Dena Coggins 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28