Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01416/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01416-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

15-cv-1416 GPC (DHB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS JESUS LOBATON, an individual; 

HEDY JULCA, an individual; DIEGO 

STEVEN LOBATON, an individual; 

and “B.C.,” a minor, by and through his 

mother and guardian ad litem, Hedy 

Julca, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipal 

corporation; NATHAN PARGA, an 

individual; KELVIN LUJAN, an 

individual; SAM EULER, an individual; 

ALI BAKHSHI, an individual; and 

DOES 1 through 200, inclusive.

 Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-1416 GPC (DHB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION RE: 

PETITION OF GUARDIAN AD 

LITEM FOR COMPROMISE OF 

MINOR’S DISPUTED CLAIM

[ECF No. 42]

Before the Court is the ex parte petition of Hedy Julca, mother and court-appointed 

guardian ad litem of minor Plaintiff B.C., for approval of the compromise of B.C.’s 

disputed claim. (ECF No. 42.) This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United 

States District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil 

Rule 17.1 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. For 

the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that the District Court GRANT the 

Petition. 

Case 3:15-cv-01416-GPC-DHB Document 50 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

15-cv-1416 GPC (DHB)

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

I. Background

Plaintiff B.C. is a minor appearing by and through his mother and court-appointed

guardian ad litem Hedy Julca. (See ECF No. 8.) The operative complaint alleges that

Plaintiff B.C. suffered serious emotional distress when several San Diego Police Officers

forcefully entered the mobile-telephone store in which Plaintiff and his family were living 

and physically assaulted and injured Plaintiff’s mother and her adult son, Luis Lobaton. 

(ECF No. 3 at 29–31.) Plaintiff, approximately three feet from the physical confrontation,

witnessed the assault upon his mother and brother and their being led out of the store in 

handcuffs. (Id.) The incident occurred on July 29, 2014, and lasted approximately ninety 

seconds. (ECF No. 49 at 2.) Plaintiff was three years old at the time. (Id.) 

In the weeks that followed the incident, Plaintiff became more dependent on his 

mother and less verbally expressive. (Id. at 3.) He also expressed a fear of the police. (Id.) 

Because of these behavioral changes, Plaintiff’s mother sought emotional counseling for 

Plaintiff. (Id.) In total, Plaintiff attended 27 one-hour counseling sessions over a period 

of ten months. (Id.) His counseling sessions concluded when his behavioral symptoms 

resolved and his counselor recommended no further treatment. (Id.) Plaintiff is now five 

years old, and he behaves and expresses himself at an age-appropriate level. (Id. at 3, 10.) 

Plaintiffs commenced the instant action on June 26, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The parties 

reached a settlement agreement at a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Louisa

S Porter on December 8, 2016. (ECF No. 34.) On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff’s guardian ad 

litem filed the instant Petition setting forth the terms of the settlement and the intended 

distribution of the settlement proceeds. (ECF No. 42.) At the request of the Court, on May 

23, 2017, Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem filed a supplemental brief in support of the Petition. 

(ECF No. 49.)

II. Discussion

This Court’s Local Civil Rule 17.1 addresses settlements for minors and provides in

pertinent part:

Case 3:15-cv-01416-GPC-DHB Document 50 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

15-cv-1416 GPC (DHB)

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

Order or Judgment Required. No action by or on behalf of a minor or 

incompetent, or in which a minor or incompetent has an interest, will be 

settled, compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated 

without court order or judgment. All settlements and compromises must be 

reviewed by a magistrate judge before any order of approval will issue. The 

parties may, with district judge approval consent to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for entry of an order approving the entire 

settlement or compromise.

CivLR 17.1(a). 

“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 that a district court “must appoint a 

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

person who is unrepresented in an action.” 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 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) (“[A] court 

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

claims to assure itself that the minor’s interest are protected, even if the settlement has been 

recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem.”).

The Ninth Circuit in Robidoux v. Rosengren established that district courts reviewing 

the settlement of a minor’s claim should “limit the scope 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.” 638 F.3d at 1181–82. They should also “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 1182 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078). 

///

Case 3:15-cv-01416-GPC-DHB Document 50 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

15-cv-1416 GPC (DHB)

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

Robidoux, however, expressly limited its holding to cases involving the settlement 

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. Nevertheless, some district courts have found the 

Robidoux rule reasonable in the context of state law claims and have applied the rule to 

evaluate the propriety of a settlement of a minor’s state law claims as well. Frary v. Cty. 

of Marin, No. 12-cv-03928-MEJ, 2015 WL 575818, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2015); see 

also Mitchell v. Riverstone Residential Grp., No. Civ. S-11-2202 LKK/CKD, 2013 WL 

1690641, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2013) (collecting cases). Other district courts have 

declined to apply the Robidoux rule to state law claims in diversity jurisdiction cases. See, 

e.g., Chance v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., No. 1:15-cv-01889-DAD-JLT, 2016 WL 

3538345, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2016). 

Here, the claim pursued by Plaintiff B.C. is a state law claim of negligent infliction 

of emotional distress. (See ECF No. 3 at 29–31.) Although Plaintiff B.C.’s claim is a state 

law claim, this is not a diversity jurisdiction case. Rather, it is the federal claims of the 

adult plaintiffs in this case that give rise to this Court’s jurisdiction, and the Court has 

supplemental jurisdiction over B.C.’s state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

Therefore, this Court concludes that application of the rule in Robidoux is appropriate to 

evaluate the settlement of Plaintiff B.C.’s claim in this case.

Minor Plaintiff B.C., through Petitioner, has agreed to settle his claim against 

Defendants for a total sum of $10,000.00. (ECF No. 42 at 3.) The parties agree that 

Defendants will pay this amount to B.C. in exchange for B.C.’s release of his claim against 

Defendants. (Id. at 3–4.) No costs or attorneys’ fees will be deducted from the total 

settlement amount to be paid to B.C.,1and Petitioner plans to pay for B.C.’s past counseling 

 

1 The parties have agreed to a separate sum for the collective Plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees. 

(ECF No. 42 at 3.) The reasonableness of these costs and fees will be decided by United States District 

Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel in a subsequent, separate order.

Case 3:15-cv-01416-GPC-DHB Document 50 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

15-cv-1416 GPC (DHB)

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

expenses, a total amount of $3,180.00 (ECF No. 49 at 4), from her share of the settlement 

proceeds. (ECF No. 42 at 3.) B.C.’s settlement fund will be placed in a blocked account 

at a federal-chartered bank, B.C.’s mother will be the trustee of the account, and no sum 

can be withdrawn from the account absent an order of this Court. (ECF No. 42-1 at 4.)

After considering the Petition and the supplemental brief filed in support of the 

Petition, the Court concludes that the settlement of minor Plaintiff B.C.’s claim is fair and 

reasonable under Robidoux. Plaintiff suffered only modest emotional injuries as a result 

of the July 29, 2014 incident, and he was able to recover fully from his emotional injuries 

in under a year. Moreover, as set forth in the supplemental brief, Plaintiff B.C. faced many 

obstacles to prevailing at trial, creating significant uncertainty as to his ability to obtain a 

substantial judgment. Furthermore, no attorneys’ fees or legal costs will be deducted from 

Plaintiff’s settlement amount, and the cost of Plaintiff’s emotional counseling will be paid 

from the settlement proceeds awarded to Plaintiff’s mother. Finally, the settlement amount 

awarded to Plaintiff is commensurate with recoveries in similar cases.

2

III. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff B.C.’s settlement 

is fair and reasonable and it serves Plaintiff’s best interests. Accordingly, the Court 

recommends that the Petition of Guardian ad Litem for Compromise of Minor’s Disputed 

Claim (ECF No. 42) be GRANTED. The Court further recommends that:

 

2

 See, e.g., Smith v. City of Stockton, 185 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (approving settlement 

sum of $11,873.94 to minor who witnessed her brother be tackled and restrained by police officer, bitten 

by police dog, and then arrested); Dumas v. City of Elk Grove, No. CIV2:09-cv-1573-GEB-JFM, 2012 

WL 2116390 (E.D. Cal. June 6, 2012) (approving settlement amount of $18,750 to seven-year-old 

daughter who witnessed police officers arrest and use excessive force against her mother) (relevant facts 

derived from Dumas v. City of Elk Grove, No. CIV2:09-cv-1573-GEB-JFM, 2011 WL 2173727 (E.D. 

Cal. June 2, 2011)); Parson v. City of Bakersfield, No. 1:07cv01468 OWW DLB, 2009 WL 453118 (E.D. 

Cal. Feb. 23, 2009) (approving settlement of $3,750 to minor who woke up and realized that his father 

had been shot by police officer); Hearn v. Philadelphia Police Officer Fuss, No. Civ.A.02-3525, 2004 

WL 345412 (E.D. Penn. Feb. 23, 2004) (approving settlement of $2,000 each to minors who suffered 

emotional distress after witnessing police officers enter home and use excessive force against their father).

Case 3:15-cv-01416-GPC-DHB Document 50 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

15-cv-1416 GPC (DHB)

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. Within 72 hours of Petitioner’s receipt of Plaintiff B.C.’s settlement fund,

Petitioner shall deposit the balance of the settlement fund into a blocked account belonging 

to Plaintiff B.C.;

2. No withdrawals of principal or interest may be made from the blocked account 

belonging to Plaintiff B.C. without a further written order under this case name and 

number, signed by a judge, and bearing the seal of this court, until B.C. attains the age of 

18 years; and

3. When B.C. attains the age of 18 years, the depository, without further order 

of this Court, shall pay by check or draft directly to the former minor, upon proper demand

by the former minor, all moneys including interest deposited under this order. The money 

on deposit is not subject to escheat. 

Dated: May 26, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-01416-GPC-DHB Document 50 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6