Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04035/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04035-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ROE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THOMAS F. WHITE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-04035 CRB

ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL

MASTER

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 provides that a district court may appoint a special

master to “make or recommend findings of fact on issues to be decided by the court without a

jury if appointment is warranted by (i) some exceptional condition.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

53(a)(1)(B)(i). The present circumstances of this case are “an exceptional condition”

requiring the appointment of a special master. 

First, there is a dispute over the legal representation of the plaintiffs. Attorney Eric

Safire has filed pleadings claiming to represent 10 of the plaintiffs. Even more remarkably,

even though the judgment has been affirmed and the money is about to be disbursed to the

plaintiffs, Safire contends that these plaintiffs are renouncing their claims. Current plaintiffs’

attorney, David Replogle, alleges that Safire has been hired indirectly by defendant White. 

Replogle has also made similar allegations as to the court-appointed guardian ad litem. 

Given that all of the plaintiffs reside in Mexico, it would be impracticable, if not impossible, 

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 610 Filed 08/16/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

for this Court to resolve the unusual representation dispute without the assistance of a special

master.

Second, at the end of the Ninth Circuit’s order affirming the judgment against

defendant White, the court rejected White’s argument about the guardian ad litem and

attorney Replogle’s promise of payments to him as such argument applies to the validity of

the settlement agreement; nonetheless, the court noted as follows:

Before disbursing the funds to the plaintiffs and/or their counsel, the district

court shall consider carefully any arguments to be made about the fund

distribution arrangements, the request for attorneys fees, and the role of the

guardian ad litem.

Such a statement is an implicit invitation to investigate the exceptional circumstances of this

case, including attorney Replogle’s arrangement with the guardian ad litem and his

relationship with his clients, an investigation that requires the services of a special master.

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 the Court appoints the

Hon. David A. Garcia (Ret.) of JAMS as Special Master in this action. The Court notes that

when it advised the parties at the August 3, 2007 hearing that it intended to appoint a special

master, no party objected. Judge Garcia shall (1) investigate the legal representation of the

plaintiffs; (2) investigate the relationship between attorney Replogle and the guardian ad

litem and whatever payment arrangement they may have or had; and (3) any other factual

matters related to attorneys’ fees and the disbursement of the settlement. All parties,

including the proposed intervener, shall cooperate with the Special Master.

The Special Master shall be compensated at the discounted rate of $350.00 per hour

and shall be reimbursed his reasonable expenses, including expenses incurred in traveling to

Mexico. As the Special Master’s task is to investigate the representation of the plaintiffs, and

to assist the Court in finding facts relevant to determining the amount of attorneys’ fees to be

paid from the settlement fund, the fees and expenses of the Special Master shall be paid from

the settlement fund which is currently deposited with the Court. Those funds are invested in

United States Treasury Securities and presently earn approximately 4.6 percent per annum.

The Special Master shall periodically submit to the undersigned judge, with a copy to

all plaintiffs’ counsel and purported plaintiffs’ counsel, as well as counsel for the guardian ad

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 610 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2003\4035\orderappointingspecialmaster.2.wpd 3

litem, an itemized statement of fees and expenses. The itemized statement shall be payable

10 days after submission unless counsel within that 10-day period file and serve objections

regarding the itemized statement on the grounds that the services performed were not in

accord with this Order, or that expenses claimed are unreasonable. If counsel within the 10-

day period file and serve objections regarding all or part of an itemized statement, the

remaining portion shall be payable. This Court will decide counsel’s objections regarding all

or part of an itemized statement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 610 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 3