Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04035/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04035-51/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ROE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THOMAS F. WHITE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-04035 CRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

[REDACTED VERSION]

Plaintiffs are 20 poor boys from Mexico who allege they were sexually abused by

defendant. Defendant is currently under indictment in this District for similar conduct, that

is, sexual tourism to Mexico. In the summer of 2005, defendant agreed in writing to settle

this action and pay each plaintiff [REDACTED]. Since that time, however, defendant has

marshaled his resources to thwart the payment of the settlement proceeds to the young

plaintiffs. Now pending before the Court is defendant’s latest effort: a motion (brought on

shortened time) to stay any payments to plaintiffs pending the Court’s decision on

defendant’s fourth motion to vacate the judgment. Defendant has already succeeded in

delaying such payments for more than two years; as there is no good reason to further

deprive these plaintiffs of the monies to which they are entitled, defendant’s motion is

DENIED.

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 715 Filed 12/20/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs are boys and young men from Puerto Vallerta, Mexico. In 2003 they filed a

lawsuit in this Court against defendant Thomas White for child sexual tourism pursuant to 18

U.S.C. section 2255. At around the same time, the United States indicted defendant with

conspiracy to travel with intent to engage in sexual acts with children (18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)),

and conspiracy to sexually exploit children (18 U.S.C. § 2251(d)), among other things. 

Defendant has not yet been tried on the charges in this District; it is the Court’s

understanding that he is currently incarcerated in Mexico.

In the summer of 2005 defendant and plaintiffs entered into a written settlement

agreement. Because four of the plaintiffs were minors at the time, the settlement required the

approval of the Court. Defendant’s efforts to deprive the plaintiffs of the monies he agreed

to pay began on the morning the Court was scheduled to approve the settlement. He retained

new counsel who appeared at the hearing to object to the Court’s approval. The Court

overruled defendant’s objections. 

Defendant did not give up. He immediately filed a motion to vacate the judgment,

that is, the Court’s approval of the settlement. The Court denied the motion by

Memorandum and Order filed October 3, 2005. Defendant still did not give up: he filed a

second motion to vacate which the Court denied by Memorandum and Order filed October

11, 2005. Defendant nonetheless refused to comply with his obligations under the settlement

agreement. Accordingly, by Memorandum and Order filed December 5, 2005, the Court

granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of the enforceability of the settlement.

Defendant still refused to comply with his obligations; instead, he appealed the

Court’s orders denying his motions to vacate and granting summary judgment of

enforceability and posted a bond. While his appeal was pending he filed yet another motion

to vacate the judgment. This motion, too, was denied. The Ninth Circuit subsequently

affirmed all of this Court’s orders, including the order enforcing the settlement against

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 715 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

defendant and the Court ordered the bond proceeds to be deposited with the Registry of the Court.

Defendant has still not halted his campaign to deprive plaintiffs of the monies to

which they are entitled. On Dec. 10, 2007, the Court issued an order indicating its intent to

distribute 60 percent of the settlement funds to plaintiffs (the remaining 40 percent is being

held by the Court for fees, costs and other reimbursements). Defendant responded by filing

yet another (his fourth) motion to vacate the judgment. He also filed a motion (to be heard

on shortened time) to stay the settlement payment to plaintiffs. The Court granted

defendant’s motion for shortened time and heard oral argument on his motion to stay

payment on December 18, 2007.

DISCUSSION

Defendant White argues that the Court should further delay payment of the settlement

proceeds to plaintiffs pending the Court’s resolution of White’s fourth motion to vacate the

judgment. White’s motion to vacate is based on fraud on the Court. He argues that the

guardian ad litem, Mauricio Rodriguez Borrego, had a conflict of interest because he had an

undisclosed fee sharing agreement with plaintiffs’ counsel David Replogle with respect to all

plaintiffs. This conflict compromised Borrego’s ability to represent the interest of the thenminor plaintiffs. The solution, argues White, is to vacate the judgment and relieve White of

his contractual obligation to pay these plaintiffs as he agreed to do.

White’s argument is not new. More than two years ago he filed a motion to vacate the

appointment of the guardian ad litem based on the very same conflict of interest he raises in

his fourth motion to vacate. The Court declined White’s invitation and since then has

repeatedly found that the settlement is in the best interests of the then-minor plaintiffs and

that White’s solution–vacating the judgment–would be manifestly unfair to plaintiffs. See,

e.g., Memorandum and Order filed October 4, 2006 at 4.

White made the same argument to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit held:

Questions about the propriety of the fee award and the role of the guardian ad

litem are important, but premature. Under the terms of the settlement

agreement, the funds are to be paid to the Clerk of Court. Before disbursing the

funds to the plaintiffs and/or their counsel, the district court shall consider

carefully any arguments to be made about the fund distribution arrangements,

the request for attorneys fees, and the role of the guardian ad litem. We are

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 715 Filed 12/20/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2003\4035\vacateorders\orderredeferpaymentredacted.wpd 4

confident that the district court will independently review all of these matters

anew guided by ethical and legal restraints and the best interests of the

children.

Roe ex rel. Borrego v. White, 232 Fed.Appx. 733 (9th Cir. May 23, 2007). Therefore, the

Ninth Circuit also declined to vacate the judgment and relieve defendant of his contractual

obligations which he has worked so diligently to avoid.

The Court will consider the evidence as to the fee sharing agreement between the

guardian ad litem and plaintiffs’ counsel before ordering any amounts to be paid as fees,

costs, or other reimbursements; indeed, the Court appointed a Special Master to investigate

the matter and the Special Master is currently preparing his report. However, after

considering the evidence already before the Court, the Court finds that it is in the best

interests of plaintiffs to pay them their proceeds without further delay. It is undisputed that

the plaintiffs are poor and uneducated. The settlement funds are being paid to a trust which

will facilitate each plaintiff’s wise use of the funds. A further delay will merely harm these

plaintiffs and vacating the judgment–the remedy defendant advocates–will benefit defendant

to the detriment of plaintiffs. Again, the Court finds that despite the guardian ad litem’s

purported conflict of the interest, the settlement is in the best interests of all plaintiffs,

including the then-minor plaintiffs and that justice would not be served by relieving

defendant of his obligations.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to stay payment of the settlement

proceeds–defendant’s latest attempt to deprive plaintiffs of the monies to which they are

entitled–is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-04035-CRB Document 715 Filed 12/20/07 Page 4 of 4