Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01634/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01634-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIANA LEDESMA; JESSICA 

LEDESMA; MARISSA LEDESMA, by 

and through her guardian ad litem Raquel 

Sierra; RONNIE MATTHEW LEDESMA, 

by and through his guardian ad litem 

Christina Garcia; and CHRISTINA 

HERRERA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KERN COUNTY; KERN COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; WARREN 

MARTIN; KARENA DELAGARZA; 

DWAYNE PERKINS; JAMES MELTON; 

and CHRISTOPHER WONG,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-01634-DAD-JLT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF MINORS’ 

COMPROMISE

(Doc. No. 76)

Plaintiffs Marissa Ledesma and Ronnie Matthew Ledesma, minors by and through their 

respective guardians ad litem, petition the court for an order approving a compromise of their

claims. (Doc. No. 76.) A hearing on the petition was held January 5, 2017. Attorney Benjamin 

Meiselas appeared with and on behalf of the minor plaintiffs and their respective guardians ad 

litem. Deputy County Counsel Andrew Thomson appeared on behalf of defendants. Having 

considered plaintiffs’ requests and heard oral argument, and for the reasons set forth below, the 

court grants the petition for minors’ compromise.

Case 1:14-cv-01634-DAD-JLT Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 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

27

28

2

BACKGROUND

This case arises from an encounter between decedent Ronnie Ledesma, Jr. and several 

deputies of the Kern County Sheriff’s Office on August 19, 2013, in Bakersfield, California. Mr. 

Ledesma died eight days after the incident while in custody at Kern Medical Center. Plaintiffs, 

decedent Ledesma’s successors in interest, brought this civil rights action alleging constitutional 

violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law civil rights and common law causes of 

action. 

Following an order on summary judgment and a settlement conference before the assigned 

magistrate judge, the parties agreed to and executed a written settlement agreement with respect 

to all claims on December 5, 2016. (See Doc. Nos. 73, 76 at 2.) The total payment under the 

settlement agreement is $1,000,000.00. (Doc. No. 76 at 4.) Of that amount, plaintiffs’ counsel 

has agreed to recovery of $400,000.00 in attorney’s fees, representing 40% of the total payment 

amount.1(Doc. No. 76 at 4.) In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel will recover $31,710.72 in costs. 

(Id.) The remaining $568,289.28 will be distributed among the five plaintiffs according to the 

following criteria agreed to by the plaintiffs: (1) each plaintiff’s relationship, and the length of 

that relationship, with the decedent; (2) each plaintiff’s level of involvement and time spent in 

this litigation; (3) the time and expenses each plaintiff incurred in the preparation of the 

decedent’s funeral and related matters; and (4) the relative strengths and weaknesses of each 

plaintiff’s claims if the matter proceeded to trial. (Id. at 5.) Based on these factors, plaintiffs 

agreed to the following allocations: 

 $173,657.85 to Adriana Ledesma

 $173,657.85 to Jessica Ledesma

 $83,657.86 to Ronnie Matthew Ledesma

 $68,657.86 to Marissa Ledesma

 $68,657.86 to Christina Herrera

 

1

Plaintiffs’ counsel notes that the 40% rate approximately reflects contingency fee rates of 45% 

for the three adult plaintiffs and 33% for the two minor plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 76-1 at 2.) At the 

hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel further noted that for the minor plaintiffs, the 33% contingency fee 

rate was reduced from the rate of 45% that was set forth in the retainer agreement. 

Case 1:14-cv-01634-DAD-JLT Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 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

27

28

3

(Id. at 5–6.) Plaintiffs Marissa Ledesma (age 15) and Ronnie Matthew Ledesma (age 4) now seek 

court approval of their respective distributions of the settlement proceeds. 

LEGAL STANDARD

This court has a duty to protect the interests of minors participating in litigation before it. 

Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983). To carry out this duty, the court 

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

minor.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dacanay v. 

Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); see also Salmeron, 724 F.2d at 1363 (“[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.” (citation omitted)). 

In examining the fairness of a settlement of a minor’s federal claims, the Ninth Circuit has 

held that a district court’s inquiry should focus solely on “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.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82; see also 

id. at 1179 n.2 (limiting the court’s holding to cases involving federal claims only). Where a 

settlement involves state law claims, federal courts generally are guided by state law. See

Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶ 15:138 

(Cal. & 9th Cir. Eds. 2015) (“Federal courts generally require that claims by minors . . . be settled 

in accordance with applicable state law. California law requires court approval of the fairness 

and terms of the settlement.”). A settlement for a minor and attorney’s fees to represent a minor 

must be approved by the court. Cal. Prob. Code § 3601; Cal. Fam. Code § 6602. Reasonable 

expenses and court costs to be paid out of the settlement also must be approved by the court. Cal. 

Prob. Code § 3601. Finally, the Local Rules of this court require disclosures regarding the minors 

involved, the nature of the controversy, the manner in which the compromise was determined, 

and whether a conflict of interest may exist between the minor and her attorney. See Local Rules 

202(b)–(c).

/////

Case 1:14-cv-01634-DAD-JLT Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 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

27

28

4

DISCUSSION

The proposed settlement agreement in this case provides that plaintiff Marissa Ledesma 

will receive $68,657.86, and plaintiff Ronnie Matthew Ledesma will receive $83,657.86. At the 

hearing on this matter, plaintiffs indicated that all named plaintiffs, including the minor plaintiffs 

by and through their guardians ad litem, met privately outside the presence of their counsel to 

arrive at a suitable agreement regarding the fair distribution of settlement proceeds. Furthermore, 

at the hearing the minor plaintiffs, through their respective guardians ad litem, expressed their 

satisfaction with the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, including the apportionment of 

attorney’s fees with respect to counsel’s representation on their behalf. 

Accordingly, having carefully reviewed plaintiffs’ submissions and having discussed this 

matter at the hearing with the minor plaintiffs through their respective guardians ad litem, the 

court finds that the proposed settlement, including the attorney’s fee rate, is fair and reasonable in 

light of the facts and circumstances of this case and recoveries in similar cases.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above,

1. The court grants plaintiffs’ petition for minors’ compromise (Doc. No. 76);

2. Plaintiff Marissa Ledesma, by and through her guardian ad litem Raquel Sierra, shall 

a. Within fourteen days of receipt, deposit her settlement proceeds, in the net 

amount of $68,657.86, in a blocked account at Kern Schools Federal Credit 

Union, whereby such proceeds may only be withdrawn by Marissa Ledesma, 

upon an order of this court or when she reaches the age of eighteen; and 

b. Within fourteen days of the deposit, submit a proof of deposit to this court; 

3. Plaintiff Ronnie Matthew Ledesma, by and through his guardian ad litem Christina 

Garcia, shall 

a. Within fourteen days of receipt, deposit his settlement proceeds, in the net 

amount of $83,657.86, in a blocked account at Kern Schools Federal Credit 

Union, whereby such proceeds may only be withdrawn by Ronnie Matthew 

Ledesma, upon an order of this court or when he reaches the age of eighteen; 

Case 1:14-cv-01634-DAD-JLT Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 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

27

28

5

and 

b. Within fourteen days of the deposit, submit a proof of deposit to this court; and

4. The parties are directed to file a request for dismissal of this action no later than

February 27, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01634-DAD-JLT Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 Page 5 of 5