Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02692/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02692-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983d Civil Rights (Death)

---

1

15cv2692-H-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

K.J.P., a Minor, individually, by

and through their mother, Loan Thi 

Minh Nguyen, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 15cv2692-H-MDD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 

RENEWED PETITION TO 

APPROVE COMPROMISE WITH 

PARAMEDIC DEFENDANTS

[ECF No. 216]

On December 17, 2019, Plaintiffs petitioned the Court to approve a 

settlement between certain Defendants and two Minor Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 

208). On January 13, 2020, the Court denied the petition without prejudice. 

(ECF No. 215). The Court expressed its concern regarding the fairness of the 

settlement to the Minor Plaintiffs considering that the Minor Plaintiffs were 

to receive nothing from the proposed $50,000 -- $45,000 was to be provided to 

counsel for Plaintiffs to fund or reimburse litigation expenses and $5,000 was 

for Minor Plaintiffs’ mother. (Id. at 6-8). 

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ renewed petition to confirm the 

settlement filed on February 13, 2020. (ECF No. 216). Plaintiffs have not 

Case 3:15-cv-02692-H-MDD Document 221 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2

15cv2692-H-MDD

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

modified the financial terms of the proposed settlement; instead they press 

their argument that the proposed settlement is fair to the Minor Plaintiffs. 

As the Court disagrees, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

The proposed settlement is between Plaintiffs, including the two Minor

plaintiffs K.J.P. and K.P.P. (“Minor Plaintiffs”), and Defendants City of 

Santee, Aaron Bagley, Aaron Hackett, Lakeside Fire Protection District, 

Marc Poynter, and David Csik (collectively, “Paramedic Defendants”). The 

Paramedic Defendants do not oppose the settlement (ECF Nos. 218, 219). 

The non-settling Defendants (the “Sheriff Defendants”) oppose in part

claiming the settlement is inconsistent with the retainer agreement between 

Plaintiffs and their counsel and because Plaintiffs did not address the Court’s 

concerns. (ECF No. 220). The Minor Plaintiffs appear through their mother, 

Plaintiff Loan Thi Minh Nguyen (“Plaintiff Nguyen”), as their guardian. 

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

On November 2, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the operative second amended 

complaint, alleging: (1) excessive force pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

the Sheriff’s Department Defendants; (2) denial of medical care pursuant to § 

1983 against the Sheriff’s Department Defendants, the Santee Fire 

Department Defendants, and District Defendants; (3) a § 1983 Monell claim 

against the Municipal Entity Defendants; (4) battery against the County of 

San Diego and Sheriff’s Department Defendants; (5) a Bane Act claim against 

the County of San Diego and Sheriff’s Department Defendants; (6) an 

Americans with Disabilities Act claim against the County of San Diego and 

Sheriff’s Department Defendants; (7) an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim 

 

1 The factual background of the case is recounted in the Court’s previous Order on the 

Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise. (ECF No. 215 at 2-4).

Case 3:15-cv-02692-H-MDD Document 221 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3

15cv2692-H-MDD

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

against the County of San Diego and Sheriff’s Department Defendants; (8) 

negligence against the County of San Diego and Sheriff’s Department 

Defendants; (9) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against Sheriff 

Gore; (10) wrongful death against all Defendants; (11) a substantive due 

process violation under § 1983 against all Defendants; and (12) intentional 

infliction of emotional distress against the County of San Diego and 

Defendants Collins and Krull. (ECF No. 50). The only claims brought on 

behalf of the Minor Plaintiffs are the wrongful death and substantive due 

process claims. (See ECF No. 50).

On April 12, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment as to the 

Paramedic Defendants on all claims including those brought by the Minor 

Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 171 at 39). The Court denied summary judgment on 

wrongful death and substantive due process claims as to other Defendants. 

(Id. at 37-39). These other Defendants appealed the Court’s order, but do not 

challenge the Court’s ruling regarding the Minor Plaintiffs’ claims. See 

K.J.P. v. Cty. of San Diego, No. 19-55527, ECF No. 11 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 

2019). Following entry of final judgment in favor of the Paramedic 

Defendants on all claims, Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit for review 

of various orders pertaining to the Paramedic Defendants. (See ECF No. 

187). Before the filing of opening briefs, Plaintiffs reached a compromise 

with the Paramedic Defendants that will finally resolve all claims against the 

Paramedic Defendants. (ECF No. 208 at 2). 

On November 27, 2019, Plaintiffs and the Paramedic Defendants filed a 

notice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 17.1(a) consenting to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction for the purpose of reviewing and approving any compromise 

between the Minor Plaintiffs and the Paramedic Defendants. (ECF No. 207). 

On December 18, 2019, United States District Judge Marilyn L. Huff 

Case 3:15-cv-02692-H-MDD Document 221 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4

15cv2692-H-MDD

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

approved the exercise of jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge 

Mitchell D. Dembin for this purpose. (ECF No. 210).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), district courts have a 

special duty to safeguard the interests of litigants who are Minors. See 

Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

17(c). Rule 17(c) provides, in relevant part, 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). With respect to proposed settlements in lawsuits involving 

minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires district courts to “conduct [their] 

own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of 

the minor.” 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). The 

district court considers “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 . . . without 

regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult coplaintiffs or plaintiff’s counsel....” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182.

III. DISCUSSION

The proposed settlement between the Paramedic Defendants and 

Plaintiffs has not been modified despite the Court raising concerns in its 

prior order. Plaintiffs and the Paramedic Defendants have agreed that, in 

exchange for a release of claims and dismissal with prejudice of all claims, 

including Plaintiffs’ currently stayed direct appeal in the Ninth Circuit 

against the Paramedic Defendants, the Paramedic Defendants will provide to 

Plaintiffs the sum of $50,000, with the parties bearing their own costs and 

Case 3:15-cv-02692-H-MDD Document 221 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5

15cv2692-H-MDD

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

fees. (ECF No. 208 at 4). Specifically, the City of Santee will contribute 

$25,000 and the Lakeside Fire Protection District will contribute $25,000. 

(Id.). Pursuant to the agreement, $45,000 will go toward funding the 

litigation expenses in this ongoing action against the remaining defendants.2 

(Id. at 5). The remaining $5,000 will go to Plaintiff Nguyen, the mother of 

the Minor Plaintiffs, for ongoing household and family expenses, including 

the care and support of the Minor Plaintiffs. (Id.). As a result, none of the 

proceeds will be directly allotted to the Minor Plaintiffs or to Plaintiff 

Kimberly Chanthapanh. (Id.). Plaintiff Nguyen believes the settlement is 

reasonable and declares that she will use the $5,000 “solely for the care and 

support of [the Minor Plaintiffs].”

3 (See ECF No. 208-2 at 2). 

Having independently evaluated the renewed petition to approve the 

settlement, the factual background, and the procedural posture of this case, 

the Court cannot approve the petition. The Court is not convinced that the 

settlement agreement protects the Minor Plaintiffs’ interests. See 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”).

To determine whether the net recovery of a minor plaintiff’s settlement 

 

2 Counsel for Plaintiffs declares that the litigation expenses thus far in this action exceed 

$150,000 and that the $45,000 received from the Paramedic Defendants will help 

Plaintiffs continue this lawsuit against the remaining defendants. (ECF No. 208-1).

3 Plaintiff Nguyen also declares that following the death of her husband, Lucky Phounsy, 

she is the sole caretaker for the Minor Plaintiffs, is unable to work, and only receives 

income from Social Security benefits following Lucky Phounsy’s death. (ECF No. 208-2 at 

2).

Case 3:15-cv-02692-H-MDD Document 221 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6

15cv2692-H-MDD

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

is in the best interests of the minor, a district court should look to “the facts 

of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” 

Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. The Court previously expressed concern that the 

parties cited no similar cases for the Court to consider whether the 

agreement is fair and reasonable for the Minor Plaintiffs. In response, 

Plaintiffs concede they have been “unable to locate a case with a similar 

procedural posture and similar allegations—i.e., a case in which a family of 

wrongful-death plaintiffs lost their entire case against a set of paramedic 

defendants in the district court, and then those defendants agreed to a 

substantial settlement while the plaintiffs’ long-shot appeal was pending 

and—more importantly—while the plaintiffs’ ongoing claims against law 

enforcement defendants were still very much alive.” (ECF No. 216 at 2). The 

Court agrees that finding an identical or nearly identical case was not likely 

to succeed. Plaintiffs should have researched and examined similar, not 

identical, cases. 

The Court’s research revealed not a single wrongful death case in the 

Ninth Circuit involving a large settlement amount where the minor plaintiffs 

received nothing. The Court’s review revealed a few cases that are similar 

enough to provide guidance on the instant petition. In Napier v. San Diego 

Cty., a minor child’s father was shot and killed by two San Diego Sheriff’s 

deputies. Napier v. San Diego Cty., No. 3:15-cv-00581-CAB (KSC), 2017 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 196223, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017). There, parties settled on 

the eve of trial, after the conclusion of discovery and after the defendants won 

summary judgment on the § 1983 claims. Id. at *7. Although the court was 

unable to identify cases involving similar circumstances, the court was able 

to determine, based upon its own review of case law, that the minor plaintiffs’ 

net recovery of $41,125 was fair and reasonable. Id. at 7-8 (collecting cases 

Case 3:15-cv-02692-H-MDD Document 221 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7

15cv2692-H-MDD

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

where a minor’s recovery ranging from $2,045.17 to $73,844.39 was found to 

be fair and reasonable). The court noted that this was fair and reasonable 

because of the uncertainty associated with a jury verdict. Id. at 7. In Cotta v. 

Henderson, the parties reached a voluntary settlement following summary 

judgment, an appeal, and a remand by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Cotta v. Henderson, No. 1:13-cv-00359-BAM, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159326, 

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018). There, the court found a settlement 

distribution of $15,000 between two minor plaintiffs fair and reasonable 

because prevailing at trial would likely have been costly, difficult, and 

counsel estimated only a 10-15% chance of a favorable verdict. Id. at 7-9. In 

Estate of Alvarado v. Tackett, the parties settled after the court granted in 

part and denied in part the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. 

Estate of Alvarado v. Tacket, No. 13cv1202-LL, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

161351, at *3-6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019). There, the court approved the 

minors’ compromises for $55,000 because “[t]he proposed settlement allows 

for the certainty of recovery for the Minor Plaintiffs, as opposed to the 

uncertainty associated with a jury verdict.” Id. at 9.

As in the cases cited above, there remains a level of uncertainty in the 

outcome of this case. There are appeals pending in the Ninth Circuit and 

certain causes of action against different Defendants are still active. Also, 

Plaintiffs concede that the appeal is a “long-shot.” (ECF No. 216 at 2). 

While the procedural posture of this case, Cotta, Napier, and Estate of 

Alvarado are similar in that regard, the proposed settlement agreements 

differ in one crucial and dispositive way: the proposed settlement in this case 

provides absolutely no financial benefit to the Minor Plaintiffs and instead 

provides the sole financial benefit to the attorneys and Minor Plaintiffs’ 

guardian. The proposed settlements in the cases cited above provided for a 

Case 3:15-cv-02692-H-MDD Document 221 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8

15cv2692-H-MDD

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

certainty of recovery for the minor plaintiffs in the face of uncertain trial

verdicts. In contrast, approving this settlement would provide for a certainty 

of no recovery for the Minor Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not shown how this 

settlement agreement is more beneficial to the Minor Plaintiffs than facing 

the risks of adverse decisions on appeal and at trial.

Plaintiffs contend that the $45,000 going towards litigation costs for the 

Minor Plaintiffs’ causes of action benefit the Minor Plaintiffs because it will 

permit them to continue litigating this action. (Id. at 4-7). Plaintiffs also 

contend that the $5,000 to Plaintiff Nguyen for “day-to-day household 

expenses” benefit the Minor Plaintiffs because their mother will be able to 

“ensure they have a safe, comfortable place to live.” (Id. at 4-7). The Court 

previously noted that Plaintiff Nguyen’s declaration was insufficient to 

ensure that the $5,000 would benefit the Minor Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs now 

explain the Court could require Plaintiff Nguyen to submit a declaration and 

provide copies of receipts to prove the funds were exhausted and benefited 

the Minor Plaintiffs. (Id. at 7). The Court is not satisfied with this 

arrangement for the reasons explained in the Court’s prior order. The Court 

also is not convinced that reimbursing counsel for litigation costs is in the 

best interests of the Minor Plaintiffs.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the renewed petition to 

approve the Minors’ compromises. (ECF No. 216). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020

Case 3:15-cv-02692-H-MDD Document 221 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8