Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00553/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00553-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

EVELINA POPAL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONAL PASSENGER RAILROAD 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00553-JSW (KAW)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN 

PART PETITION TO APPROVE 

MINOR'S COMPROMISE

Re: Dkt. No. 46

Petitioner Margarita Balsyavychus,1as guardian ad litem for minors A.P. and T.P. (the 

“Minors”), petitions the Court for an order approving the compromise of the minor daughters’

claims against Defendants National Railroad Passenger Corporation (dba Amtrak) and employee 

Thomas McKeown for injuries arising out of the January 7, 2013 accident, in which a train 

operated by McKeown fatally struck Fazel Popal as he walked across the railroad tracks. (Pls.’ 

Pet., Dkt. No. 46.)

The petition is unopposed, and the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without 

oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The undersigned finds the settlement fair and in the best 

interest of the Minors, and recommends that the district court grant the petition in part and deny in 

part.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 7, 2013, at approximately 7:48 a.m., decedent Fazel Popal, husband of Plaintiff 

Evelina Popal and father of Minors A.P. and T.P., was fatally struck by an Amtrak train while he 

 

1

Petitioner’s surname is inconsistently spelled throughout the moving papers, so the undersigned 

will utilize the spelling contained in the court order granting Ms. Balsyavichus’s application to be 

appointed the Minors’ guardian ad litem. (See Decl. of Katie McIver, “McIver Decl.,” Dkt. No. 

46-1 ¶ 6, Ex. 3.)

Case 4:15-cv-00553-JSW Document 50 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 6
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

walked across the railroad tracks located between Huntwood Avenue and Orchard Avenue in 

Hayward, CA.

On December 18, 2014, Plaintiffs Evelina Popal and Minors A.P. and T.P. filed a lawsuit 

alleging that Defendants were liable for wrongful death, and that Amtrak was negligent for failing 

to make necessary safety improvements to the railroad crossing in time to prevent Mr. Popal’s 

death. Both A.P. and T.P., who were then 8 and 9 years of age, suffered emotional distress as a 

result of the collision. Petitioner Margarita Balsyavychus was appointed guardian ad litem for the 

Minors on December 19, 2014. (McIver Decl., Ex. 3.) Petitioner is the Minors’ aunt. (McIver 

Decl. ¶ 2.) On February 5, 2015, the case was removed to federal court.

Petitioner’s attorneys conducted numerous depositions and propounded written discovery, 

and prepared for and attended court hearings, in order to obtain the evidence that ultimately led to 

the settlement. (Pls.’ Pet. at 3.) On March 14, 2016, a settlement in the amount of $100,000 was 

obtained, which is to be entirely paid by Amtrak and split equally among the three plaintiffs. 

(McIver Decl. ¶ 3.) Petitioner’s attorneys advanced $9,444.50 in costs to support the investigation 

and inquiry. (McIver Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 2.) 

On September 6, 2016, Petitioner, as guardian ad litem for the Minors, filed a petition for 

an order approving the compromise of the Minors’ claims against Defendants National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation (dba Amtrak) and employee Thomas McKeown for injuries arising out of 

the January 7, 2013 accident. (Pls.’ Pet., Dkt. No. 46.) There was no opposition filed. The 

petition was referred to the undersigned for report and recommendation. 

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). “Rule 17(c) provides, in relevant part, that a district court ‘must appoint a 

guardian ad litem—or issue other appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person 

who is unrepresented in an action.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). “In the context of

proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court

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

Case 4:15-cv-00553-JSW Document 50 Filed 10/24/16 Page 2 of 6
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

minor.’” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); see also 

Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that “a court must 

independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s claims to 

assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected, even if the settlement has been recommended 

or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem”). The court must consider whether the 

proposed settlement is fair and reasonable as to each minor plaintiff in the case. Id. at 1182. The 

Robidoux court expressly limited its holding to review of a minor’s federal claims, noting that it 

did “not express a view on the proper approach for a federal court to use when sitting in diversity 

and approving the settlement of a minor’s state law claims.” Id. at 1179 n.2. 

As all claims in this matter are state law causes of action, under California law, the Court, 

in approving a minor’s compromise, is entrusted with ensuring “that whatever is done is in the 

minor’s best interests.” Goldberg v. Superior Court, 23 Cal. App. 4th 1378, 1382 (1994). The 

primary concerns then is with whether “the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor's 

injuries, care and treatment.” Id. at 1382.

III. DISCUSSION

Based on the Court’s review of Plaintiffs’ submissions, the proposed settlement is fair, 

reasonable, and proper. Under the terms of the settlement, each plaintiff will receive 33.33% of 

the settlement proceeds after costs and attorneys’ fees are deducted. The settlement monies will 

be available to the Minors once they reach the age of majority and will aid the Minors in their 

beginnings of adulthood and afford them opportunities for the future. (Pls.’ Pet. at 3.)

The contingency fee agreement provides that counsel is entitled to 40% of any recovery 

after the filing of a civil complaint. (Contingency Fee Agreement, McIver Decl., Ex. 1.) 

Notwithstanding the terms of the fee agreement, counsel requests a reduced fee of 25% for each 

minor’s settlement, and a 40% fee for Evelina Popal’s settlement. (Pls.’ Pet. at 9.) After reducing 

the $100,000 recovery for costs, $90,555.50 remains to be distributed in equal parts, which is

$30,185.16 per plaintiff. Id. After the reduction for fees and costs, each minor will receive 

$22,638.87, and Evelina Popal will receive $18,111.10. Id. The court finds that the equal shares in 

the settlement proceeds is fair and reasonable to compensate Minors for some of the economic 

Case 4:15-cv-00553-JSW Document 50 Filed 10/24/16 Page 3 of 6
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

advantage they might have had if their father had lived and to provide for treatment of any 

emotional distress they may have suffered in connection with their father’s untimely death.

Petitioner, however, miscalculated the amount of attorneys’ fees to be paid by the Minors. 

Petitioner seeks to recover $19,620.35 in connection with representing the Minors. (Verified Pet., 

Dkt. No. 46-2 at 5.) After costs are evenly split between the three plaintiffs, each minor is to 

receive $30,185.16 before the reduction for attorneys’ fees. (Pls.’ Pet. at 9.) 25% of $30,185.16 is 

$7,546.29. (See Pls.’ Pet. at 9.) Thus, the attorneys’ fees earned for representing the two minors is 

$15,092.58. The Court notes that Petitioner correctly calculated the Minor’s eventual recovery

after the reduction of attorneys’ fees and costs. See id.

The petition does not identify any other wrongful death cases involving Amtrak. The 

Court’s own review of case cases involving pedestrian-train fatalities revealed results ranging

from defense verdicts to million dollar settlements. See Lopez v. BNSF Railway Co., 14 Trials 

Digest 13th 31 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2009)($88,725 settlement); Bulnes v. Tutor-Saliba/Slattery Joint 

Venture, 25 Trials Digest 9th 18 (San Mateo Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2005)(defense verdict);

Gutierrez v. Union Pacific Railroad, JVR No. 427901 (San Bernardino Super. Ct. Oct. 2002) 

($10,000 settlement to compensate two minor children); Rea vs. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers 

Board (Caltrain), 12 Trials Digest 14th 14 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2010). The million dollar 

settlements, however, represent extreme cases of negligence involving the clear violation of 

policies and safety protocols. This does not appear to be the case here. 

Thus, upon consideration of the facts of the case, the Minors’ claims, the risks of 

prolonged litigation and trial, and the recoveries in similar actions, the Court concludes that the 

proposed compromise is fair and reasonable and comports with California law.

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT

IN PART AND DENY IN PART the petition to approve the minors’ compromise. 

The undersigned FURTHER RECOMMENDS as follows:

1. That the settlement by Petitioner of this action, including without limitation 

settlement for the total amount of $100,000 shall be and it hereby is approved;

Case 4:15-cv-00553-JSW Document 50 Filed 10/24/16 Page 4 of 6
5

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

2. That the attorneys’ fee agreement shall by and it hereby is approved as modified; 

the Court finds that the fee agreement is fair and reasonable to minor A.P. and T.P.’s interests;

3. That the costs advanced by Petitioner’s attorneys in the total amount of 

$9,444.50—to be apportioned equally between all three plaintiffs— and the requested allocation

of the costs shall be approved, as the said costs for the benefit of minors A.P. and T.P. are fair and 

reasonable to their interests;

4. That the Petitioner’s counsel be awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of 

$15,092.58, pursuant to the contingency fee agreement and subject to counsel’s voluntary 

reduction of 25% of the recovery, are fair and reasonable to the Minors’ interests;

5. As to the proposed administration of the settlement proceeds for minors A.P. and 

T.P., that: 

a. Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, Inc., has deposited the settlement check in the 

Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, Inc. trust account at Citibank, VistaShadowridge Branch # 654, 1611 S Melrose Pl., Vista CA 92081.

b. Petitioner’s attorneys, Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, Inc., after obtaining the 

Court’s approval of settlement distribution, shall cause Harris Personal Injury 

Lawyers, Inc. to be reimbursed from its trust account its expenses in the total 

amount of $9,444.50 and attorneys’ fees in the total amount of $15,092.58, 

concerning the representation of A.P. and T.P.’s interests;

c. Petitioner’s attorneys, Harris Personal Injury Lawyers Inc., after payment of the 

expenses and attorneys’ fees concerning the representation of A.P. and T.P.’s 

interests as aforesaid, shall cause to be issued its trust account each check for 

$22,638.87 payable to “Margarita Balsyavychus as Guardian ad Litem for A.P” 

and “Margarita Balsyavychus as Guardian ad Litem for T.P.,” and shall cause 

said checks to be deposited in an insured account in a financial institution in the 

State of California permitted by Cal. Prob. C. § 3611(b). 

d. Funds in A.P. and T.P.’s Account shall be subject to withdrawal only upon 

authorization of the Court, pursuant to Cal. Prob. C. § 3611(b) and 

Case 4:15-cv-00553-JSW Document 50 Filed 10/24/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

notwithstanding any prior order of the Court; and

e. Prior to deposit of A.P. and T.P.’s Net Settlement Proceeds in A.P. and T.P.’s 

Account, Petitioner’s attorneys, Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, Inc., shall 

cause a copy of the Court’s order to be served on the registered agent and a 

manager of the financial institution at which A.P. and T.P.’s Account is held;

6. That, pursuant to § 3612(a) of the California Probate Code and any other relevant 

provision therein, the district court shall have continuing jurisdiction of the money paid or to be 

paid, delivered, deposited, or invested for the benefit of A.P. and T.P., until they reach 18 years of 

age.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. 

Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS 

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011). 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: October 24, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00553-JSW Document 50 Filed 10/24/16 Page 6 of 6