Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04358/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04358-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 42:9601 CERCLA

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN SCHAEFFER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GREGORY VILLAGE PARTNERS, L.P., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04358-JST 

ORDER GRANTING MINOR'S 

COMPROMISE

Re: ECF No. 287

Plaintiffs Ryan Schaeffer and Anne Schaeffer petition the Court for an order approving 

their compromise of their minor daughter’s claim. ECF No. 287. The Court will grant the 

petition. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Ryan Schaeffer, Anne Shaeffer, and Reese Schaeffer brought this lawsuit against 

various defendants alleging personal injury and environmental contamination. ECF No. 1. 

Plaintiffs asserted claims for nuisance, trespass, negligence, ultrahazardous activity, waste, cost 

recovery under California’s Hazardous Substance Account Act, and for violations of Business and 

Professions Code §17200. Id. The case was removed to this Court, and prior to removal, Anne 

Schaeffer was appointed guardian ad litem for Reese Schaeffer. 

Plaintiffs have largely settled this case and have entered into five different settlement 

agreements with the following Defendants: (1) Piccolo Properties for $6,500 (ECF No. 95); (2) 

Central Contra Costa Sanitary District for $50,000 (ECF No. 220); (3) Chevron U.S.A. Inc., MB 

Enterprises, Inc., Massoud Enrahimi, and Bhagdeep S. Dhaliwal for $205,000 (ECF No. 282); (4) 

Gregory Village Partners, L.P. and VPI, Inc. for $235,000 and the purchase of Plaintiffs’ home for 

$700,000 (ECF No. 285); and (5) Joseph J. Lee, decedent Grace M. Lee, Moon, S. Lim, and 

Jiewon Lim for $175,000 (ECF No. 286). 

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 295 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs also received an out-of-court settlement from non-parties, Jane A. Lehrman and 

successor entities to the Estate of Ned Robinson and the Estate of Marjorie Robinson, in the 

amount of $35,000. ECF No. 287 ¶ 19.

The total amount paid by settling Defendants and the non-parties will total $1,406,500. 

ECF No. 287 ¶ 21. This amount includes the proceeds from the sale of Plaintiffs’ home. Ryan 

and Anne Schaeffer plan to sell their home to Defendant Gregory Village for $700,000, pay off the

mortgage, and use the remaining funds to establish two separate households. Id. Plaintiffs have 

incurred $240,581.16 in litigation costs and have agreed to pay their counsel, Paladin Law Group 

LLP, $328,333.1 ECF No. 287, Exs. 1, 2. Attorneys’ fees for establishing the trust for the minor 

will total $1,200. After subtracting costs, the net settlement fund will equal $264,525.84. 

Plaintiffs propose allocating $30,000 to Reese Schaeffer, $117,272.42 to Ryan Schaeffer, and 

$117, 262.42 to Anne Schaeffer. ECF No. 287, Ex. 3. 

On September 21, 2015, Plaintiffs Ryan and Anne Schaeffer filed this petition, requesting 

that the Court approve the compromise of their minor daughter’s claims. ECF No. 287. Reese 

Schaeffer is currently five years old and resides with Anne Schaeffer. ECF No. 287 at ¶ 1. Ryan 

and Anne Schaeffer request that the Court approve the purchase and establishment of a revocable 

trust account with the present value of $30,000. Id. Ryan and Anne Schaeffer will serve as cotrustees of the trust. ECF No. 287, Ex. 1. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 

safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 

(9th Cir. 2011). In the context of a proposed settlement in suits involving minors, the Court must

“‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the 

minor.’” Id. at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). In 

cases involving the settlement of a minor’s federal claims, district courts should “limit the scope 

 

1

Plaintiffs’ counsel originally agreed to a success fee of 35% after costs, but during settlement 

negotiations, agreed to a $328,333 success fee. ECF No. 287 ¶ 24. Adding the $1,200 fee for 

establishing the trust, attorneys’ fees represent 23.4% of the total settlement or 28.3% of the 

settlement excluding litigation costs. 

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 295 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of their review to the question whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the 

settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and 

recovery in similar cases,” and should “evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery 

without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or 

plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 

1181–82 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078). 

The Ninth Circuit has not expressed a view as to the proper approach for courts to use 

when sitting in diversity and approving settlement of a minor’s claims arising under state law. Id.

at 1179 n.2. However, because this case implicates both federal and state law claims and because 

the terms of the settlement are not claim-specific, the Court will apply Robidoux to evaluate the 

settlement of the minor’s claims in this case. See Frary v. Cnty. of Marin, No. 12-cv-3928-MEJ, 

2015 WL 3776402, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2015); Doe ex rel. Scott v. Gill, No. 11-cv-4979-

CW, 2012 WL 1939612, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012); Bor v. PPC WSSC LLC, No. 11-cv3430-LHK, 2012 WL 1438779, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012). 

III. DISCUSSION

Under the proposed compromise, Reese Schaeffer will receive a net recovery of $30,000. 

This amount will be deposited into a brokerage trust account with United States Automobile 

Association, with Ryan and Anne Schaeffer serving as co-trustees. The trust is revocable when 

Reese Schaeffer reaches the age of 18. ECF No. 287 at 2–3. 

The Court finds that the net amount to be distributed to Reese Schaeffer is fair and 

reasonable, in light of the facts of the case and the minor’s claims against the Defendants. 

Plaintiffs point out that (1) their complaint primarily focuses on damages to and remediation of the 

property owned by Ryan and Anne Schaeffer, (2) some of the claims are not applicable to the 

minor, and (3) that only the negligence cause of action “encompasses personal injury potentially 

inflicted upon [P]laintiffs, including the minor” and “at this time, there have been no manifestation 

of any physical injury to the minor.” ECF No. 287 ¶ 26. Considering the facts of the case, the 

claims involving Reese Schaeffer, and the proposed settlement, the Court approves the proposed 

compromise of Reese Schaeffer’s claims as fair and reasonable.

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 295 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Petitioners’ request for approval of the minor’s compromise is 

granted. Within thirty days of establishing the trust, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide the Court a 

declaration verifying the establishment of the trust.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 295 Filed 11/23/15 Page 4 of 4