Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00014/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00014-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NO. CIV. S-07-0014 LKK

JENNIFER SCHWALL; PAUL

VELEZ; WESLEY TRACHT,

KYLE SCHWALL and CODY

SCHWALL, minors by and

through their GUARDIAN

AD LITEM, JENNIFER 

SCHWALL, individuals,

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

MEADOW WOOD APARTMENTS, a

business of unknown form;

THOMAS L. BLOXHAM and

DIANA L. BLOXHAM, individuals

and doing business as MEADOW

WOOD APARTMENTS,

Defendants.

 /

The plaintiffs are minors and their guardian ad litem, who

also has brought suit personally, suing defendant for violation of

the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., and related

federal and state laws. In the present motion, the plaintiffs

Case 2:07-cv-00014-LKK -KJM Document 29 Filed 02/27/08 Page 1 of 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

2

request approval of the Compromise of Claim of Minor Plaintiffs’

Settlement. The court resolves the motion on the papers and after

oral argument.

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs sued the defendants, Meadowwood Apartments and

its owners and operators, for violations of the Fair Housing Act,

the California Fair Housing and Employment Act, and other state

claims, alleging that the defendants discriminated against them

when the adult plaintiffs attempted to rent an apartment from the

defendants. See Complaint. The complaint was filed in January 2007

and since then there have been no dispositive motions filed in the

case.

In the present motion, the plaintiffs request approval of a

settlement agreement. Under the settlement agreement, the

defendants have agreed to pay the plaintiffs $50,000 for damages,

attorney’s fees, and costs. Declaration of Jennifer Schwall In

Support of Plaintiff/ Guardian Ad Litem Jennifer Schwall’s Motion

to Approve Compromise of Claim of Minor Plaintiffs’ Settlement

(“Schwall Decl.”), ¶ 5. Of this, $30,000 is proposed to pay

attorneys fees and costs, leaving a net settlement of $20,000 to

the plaintiffs. Id. This remainder is apportioned to give 32.5 per

cent each to plaintiffs Jennifer Schwall and Paul Velez and 12.5

per cent to each remaining plaintiff. Id.

II. STANDARD

Under the Local Rules, the court must approve the settlement

of the claims of a minor. Local Rule 17-202(b). The party moving

Case 2:07-cv-00014-LKK -KJM Document 29 Filed 02/27/08 Page 2 of 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

3

for approval of the settlement must provide the court “such . . .

information as may be required to enable the Court to determine the

fairness of the settlement or compromise. . . .” Local Rule 17-

202(b)(2).

III. ANALYSIS

In considering the fairness of a settlement of minors’ claims,

federal courts generally are guided by state law. See 2 Schwarzer,

Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide, Federal Procedure

Before Trial (2002) Pretrial Conference and Settlement Procedures,

¶ 15:136, p. 15-42; Walden v. Moffett, 2007 WL 2859790 (E.D. Cal.

Sept. 26, 2007). Under California law, a court must approve the

amount paid out of the settlement for attorneys fees and costs for

claims brought by minors. Cal. Prob. Code § 3601; Cal. Code Civ.

P. § 372. One leading California practice guide observes:

Courts vary in their fee approval policies. All will

consider the time expended and the complexity of the

case. But, in contingency fee cases, most courts require

a showing of “good cause” to award more than 25% of any

recovery. [Citations omitted] . . . As a practical

matter, awards for more than 25% of the recovery in a

minor’s case are rare and justified only when counsel

proves that he or she provided extraordinary services.

2 Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial

(2007) Settlement Procedures, ¶¶ 12:576-12:577, p. 12(II)-17

(emphasis in original); see also Sacramento Superior Court Rule

10.02 (a “reasonable” attorney fee for the settlement of a minor’s

claim is 25%). 

Here, there is insufficient evidence presented to the court

to permit the conclusion that an award of attorneys fees and costs

Case 2:07-cv-00014-LKK -KJM Document 29 Filed 02/27/08 Page 3 of 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

1

The court approves the remaining terms of the settlement and

would approve a settlement that allocated no more than 25 percent

of the recovery to attorneys fees, plus costs.

4

totaling 60 percent of the settlement amount is reasonable. The

plaintiff’s counsel has tendered evidence of the amount of time he

spent working on the case and multiplied this by his hourly rate

of $350, though he was working on a contingency fee basis due to

his clients’ inability to pay his hourly fee. Declaration of Stuart

Fagan In Support of Plaintiff/ Guardian Ad Litem Jennifer Schwall’s

Motion to Approve Compromise of Claim of Minor Plaintiffs’

Settlement (“Fagan Decl.”), ¶¶ 2, 4, 5, 6. He also declared that

the attorneys fees and costs totaled $43,828.88, but that he

reduced his recovery to $30,000 out of fairness to his clients. Id.

¶ 11. Finally, plaintiff Jennifer Schwall had declared that she

believes the settlement to be “fair [and] reasonable.” Schwall

Decl. ¶ 8.

Although the tendered evidence is helpful to the court’s

analysis, it is insufficient to demonstrate that it is reasonable

for attorneys fees and costs to comprise 60% of the total

settlement award, particularly when the state courts find a 25%

award reasonable. 2 Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide, Civil

Procedure Before Trial at ¶¶ 12:576-12:577. Consequently, the court

declines to approve the proposed settlement.1

IV. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, the court DENIES the motion to

approve the compromise of claim of minor children’s settlement.

Case 2:07-cv-00014-LKK -KJM Document 29 Filed 02/27/08 Page 4 of 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

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 26, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00014-LKK -KJM Document 29 Filed 02/27/08 Page 5 of 5