Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03209/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03209-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J.Z., a minor by and through his )

Guardian ad Litem, JASON ZYSMAN, )

 ) 2:09-cv-03209-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

v. ) ORDER

) 

AMADOR COUNTY UNIFIED SCHOOL )

DISTRICT and ALLAN VAN VELZEN, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem,

filed a petition for approval of minor’s compromise (“Petition”) on

June 21, 2010. The Petition was heard on July 19, 2010. Plaintiff

seeks in his Petition approval of a $150,000 settlement reached by the

parties on May 7, 2010 during mediation of Plaintiff’s claims

(“Settlement Payment”). The reasons stated in the Petition and at the

hearing are sufficient to justify approving it, and it will be

approved. 

A federal court is required to considered the fairness of a

settlement to a minor and “[i]n considering the fairness . . . federal

courts generally are guided by state law.” Schwall v. Meadow Wood

Case 2:09-cv-03209-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff’s counsel agreed at the hearing to reduce the 1

original amount sought, $37,500, by $1.00 in order to correct an error

in the Petition regarding the amount of the lien belonging to Bowman &

Associates.

2

Apartments, 2008 WL 552432, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (citing 2

Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide, Federal

Procedure Before Trial (2002) Pretrial Conference and Settlement

Procedures, ¶ 15:138; Cal. Prob. Code § 3601; and Cal. Code Civ. P. §

372). Further, the court approving a minor’s compromise “shall . . .

authoriz[e] and direct[] that reasonable expenses, medical or

otherwise and including reimbursement to a parent, . . . shall be paid

from the money or other property to be paid or delivered for the

benefit of the minor . . . .” Cal. Prob Code § 3601(a). 

The Petition includes a request for approval of payment of

$37,499 in attorney’s fees to Plaintiff’s counsel at the law office 1

of Beyer Pongratz & Rosen. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks payment of

$495.26 for filing fees, process server fees, and other copy fees to

Beyer Pongratz & Rosen and reimbursement to Plaintiff’s parents for an

initial fee of $1,500 paid to Beyer Pongratz & Rosen, for a total of

$1995.26 in costs. (Id. 5:19-6:2) The $37,499 represents 25% of the

gross proceeds of the Settlement Payment, which was agreed to in an

August 20, 2009 contingency fee agreement entered into by Plaintiff

through his guardian ad litem. (Petition 5:25-27.) “The Sacramento

County Superior Court’s local rule governing attorney’s fees for

claims brought by minors prescribes that 25% ‘shall be considered

reasonable under usual circumstances’ for ‘[s]ettlement[s] without the

commencement of a court trial,’ which is the case here.” Welch v.

Cnty of Sacramento, 2008 WL 3285412, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting

Case 2:09-cv-03209-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Local Rules for the Super. Ct. of Cal., County of Sacramento R.

10.02). 

Plaintiff also seeks to have disbursed from the Settlement

Payment, payment to the law firm that represented Plaintiff in

injunction matters related to this case and to the law firm that

represented Plaintiff in a criminal matter Plaintiff also represents

is related to this case. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks payment of

$5,200.23 to Beyer Pongratz & Rosen for defending Plaintiff in the 

criminal matter, and payment of $4,601 to the law office of Bowman &

Associates for representing Plaintiff “in several restraining order

matters related to altercations at school in which Plaintiff was

involved.” (Id. 6:5-6.) Plaintiff has sufficiently explained the

appropriateness of paying these fees.

Lastly, Plaintiff seeks to have disbursed from the

Settlement Payment $2,015.66 to his parents for medical bills advanced

on behalf of Plaintiff. California Probate Code § 3601 prescribes

that the court approving a minor’s compromise “shall . . . authoriz[e]

and direct[] that reasonable expenses, medical or otherwise and

including reimbursement to a parent, . . ., shall be paid from the

money or other property to be paid or delivered for the benefit of the

minor . . . .” Cal. Prob. Code § 3601(a). Plaintiff explains in the

Petition that his “father has medical insurance from his employer but

has still incurred out-of-pocket medical expenses related to

[Plaintiff’s] psychological condition . . . .” (Petition 6:16-17.) 

Further, the Petition describes how the $2,015.66 was spent on

Plaintiff’s medical condition.

The settlement reached is reasonable and fair, and in the

best interests of the minor; therefore, the minor’s compromise is

Case 2:09-cv-03209-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

approved. Accordingly, disbursement of the $150,000 settlement funds

shall be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel for distribution as follows:

$2,015.66 shall be reimbursed to Plaintiff’s parents for medical bills

advanced on behalf of Plaintiff; $1,500 shall be reimbursed to

Plaintiff’s parents for legal costs advanced on behalf of Plaintiff;

$37,994.26 shall be paid to the law office of Beyer Pongratz & Rosen

for attorney’s fees and costs; $5,200.23 shall be paid to Beyer

Pongratz & Rosen to satisfy the lien for defending Plaintiff in the

above-referenced criminal matter; and $4,601 shall be paid to the law

office of Bowman & Associates for representing Plaintiff the abovereferenced injunction matters. The remaining $98,688.85 shall be

deposited into an FDIC insured blocked account on behalf of Plaintiff,

and none of this deposited money shall be withdrawn without court

order or until August 20, 2011, the date on which Plaintiff reaches

the age of majority. Lastly, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed at the

hearing to represent the minor should the minor seek to withdraw any

of the referenced deposited money before he reaches the age of

majority, and that the 25% in attorneys’ fees includes any necessary

representation for this purpose. 

This case shall be closed.

Dated: July 19, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-03209-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 07/20/10 Page 4 of 4