Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05418/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05418-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE ROSENBERG, et al.,

 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

COLT’S MANUFACTURING COMPANY

LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

1:04-CV-5418 OWW TAG

LEE ROSENBERG’S APPLICATION

FOR APPROVAL OF PARTIAL

COMPROMISE OF MINOR’S CLAIM

(DOC. 38 & 74)

COLT PARTIES’ REQUEST FOR

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL OF ALL

CLAIMS, CROSSCLAIMS, AND

COUNTERCLAIMS RELATING TO THE

COLT PARTIES PURSUANT TO

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. 

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves the shooting death of Jordan Rosenberg,

Plaintiff Alex Rosenberg’s brother, on June 27, 2003 in the home

of Defendant Craig Hansen. Lee Rosenberg, Jordan and Alex’s

father, initiated this lawsuit on his own behalf and on behalf of

his two sons. The complaint names as defendants Colt’s

Manufacturing Co., LLC and New Colt Holding Corporation (the

“Colt Parties”), Craig Hansen, and Sharrie Rodzon-Harris, Jordan

and Alex’s mother. 

Before the court for decision are two separate requests for

court approval of settlement agreements between various parties

and Alex Rosenberg, a minor. Doc. 38, filed Oct. 14, 2004, renoticed by Doc. 74, Aug. 8, 2005; Doc. 75. The first settlement

for which approval is sought is between Plaintiffs Lee and Alex

Case 1:04-cv-05418-OWW -TAG Document 77 Filed 09/23/05 Page 1 of 7
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

Rosenberg, and Defendant Craig Hansen, for the limit of Hansen’s

his $100,000 insurance policy. The parties agreed to split the

proceeds evenly between Lee Rosenberg, Alex Rosenberg, and

Sharrie Rodzen-Harris.

The second settlement is between, on the one hand, Lee

Rosenberg, Sharrie Rodzen-Harris, and Craig Hansen, and on the

other the Colt Parties. The parties have agreed to dismiss all

the remaining claims in the case with prejudice, except that all

claims brought on behalf of or against Alex Rosenberg will be

dismissed without prejudice because he is a minor. 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

At some point prior to June 27, 2003, Rodzon-Harris

developed a relationship with defendant Hansen. She and her two

sons, Alex and Jordan, began staying at Hansen’s home. On June

27, 2003, Rodzon-Harris left the two boys alone in Hansen’s

house. 

Alex obtained a pistol from a night stand in one of the

bedrooms. According to the police report, Alex believed that he

had unloaded the pistol and made it inoperable by removing the

magazine from the gun. Alex then returned to the living room

where the two boys had been watching the war movie, “We Were

Soldiers.” Alex pointed the pistol at Jordan’s head and pulled

the trigger. A bullet remained in the weapon and was discharged. 

Jordan was fatally wounded. 

The weapon fired by Alex was a Colt 45 designed and

manufactured by Colt’s Manufaturing Company LLC, and/or its

predecessors in interest. The weapon, bearing the serial number

369361, was designed in 1911 and was not manufactured with either

Case 1:04-cv-05418-OWW -TAG Document 77 Filed 09/23/05 Page 2 of 7
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

a “loaded chamber indicator” or a “magazine disconnect safety.” 

Plaintiff alleges that both of these safety technologies were

readily available to Colt in 1911. Doc. 51 at 2. Colt claims

that the particular weapon in question was manufactured for

military use and distributed to a military base in California.

Subsequent to its manufacture, the weapon was retrofitted to

utilize 9mm ammunition. 

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY/ SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

The Complaint names as defendants Craig Hansen, Sharrie

Rodzon-Harris Colts’ Manufacturing Company, LLC, New Colt Holding

Corporation, and Does 1 through 100, who represent fictitious

wholesalers, retailers, or entities otherwise involved in

distribution of the firearm to the public. The complaint’s 

“first cause of action” for wrongful death is sub-divided into

six “counts”: (Count 1) negligence against Sharrie Rodzon-Harris;

(Count 2) negligence against Craig Hansen; (Count 3) liability

for failure to warn or instruct against the Colt Parties; (Count

4) strict products liability/design against the Colt Parties;

(Count 5) products liability/negligence against the Colt Parties;

and (Count 6) failure to recall or retrofit against the Colt

Defendants. A “second cause of action” for infliction of

emotional distress contains five “counts”: (Count 1) liability

for failure to warn or instruct; (Count 2) strict products

liability/design; (Count 3) products liablity/negligence; (Count

4) failure to recall or retrofit; and (Count 5) punitive damages. 

Finally, a “third cause of action” for survivorship contains the

same five counts as the second cause of action for infliction of

emotional distress. 

Case 1:04-cv-05418-OWW -TAG Document 77 Filed 09/23/05 Page 3 of 7
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

Plaintiff maintains that the gun was “defective at the time

of its design in 1911 because it did not include readily

available technology (for which Colt held patents) including a

loaded chamber indicator and a magazine disconnect.” Doc. 51 at

2. Plaintiff contends that the Colt Parties had a continuing

duty to recall or retrofit the weapon: “with tens of thousands of

Colt 45s among the civilian poplation as surplus, even if a

weapon without the safeties was suitable for military use, the

lack of such safeties should have prompted a retrofit

offer/warning. Doc. 51 at 4. Plaintiff asserts that Colt knew

that the lack of safety features in its original design has “been

the cause of numerous deaths, many of them children, resulting

from the fact that persons handling the weapon have no easy way

of determining whether or not the chamber contains a round. And

many believe that withdrawing the magazine precludes the weapon

from firing.” Id. at 6. 

Simultaneous with the filing of the complaint, Lee Rosenberg

moved ex parte to be be appointed as guardian ad litem for Alex. 

Doc. 2, filed Mar. 11, 2004. Mr. Rosenberg was ordered to

provide notice to all interested parties and to set the matter

for a hearing. Doc. 5, filed Mar. 16, 2004. The petition was

set for a hearing before Magistrate Judge Goldner. Doc. 12,

filed May 26, 2004. 

Craig Hansen answered the complaint and filed counterclaims

against Alex Rosenberg and the unnamed defendants for equitable

indemnity, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief

concerning cors-defendants’ obligations to indemnify Hansen. 

Doc. 13, filed May 4, 2004. Hansen also filed cross-claims

against Ms. Rodzon-Harris on the same grounds. Id. 

Case 1:04-cv-05418-OWW -TAG Document 77 Filed 09/23/05 Page 4 of 7
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

Ms. Rodzon-Harris filed a declaration in opposition to Lee

Rosenberg’s petition for appointment as guardian ad litem. Doc.

18, filed May 21, 2004. Ms. Rodzon-Hariss’ lawyer, Charles Oren,

filed a declaration on behalf of Alex Rosenberg, also in

opposition to the appointment of Lee Rosenberg’s as Alex’s

guardian ad litem. Doc. 17, filed May 21, 2004. Alex also

counter-petitioned for the appointment of his grandfather, Wesley

Harris, as guardian ad litem. Doc. 17, Filed May 21, 2004. 

A few weeks later, on June 4, 2004, Lee Rosenberg, Ms.

Rodzon-Harris and Alex entered into an agreement concerning a

number of issues, including the appointment of a guardian ad

litem for Alex. Doc. 20. Ms. Rodzon-Harris withdrew her

objection to the appointment of Lee Rosenberg as guardian ad

litem under the “second cause of action” (infliction of emotional

distress). Id. at 2. Alex withdrew his nomination of Wesley

Harris as guardian, but left it up to “the Court to determine

whether or not to appoint Lee Rosenberg, or a disinterested party

as Guardian Ad litem.” Id. It was further stipulated that “this

Court will appoint a Guardian Ad litem for Alex Rosenberg” who

will “settle with Craig Hansen upon the necessary terms and

conditions, and apply for approval of that settlement and

allocation of the proceeds as set forth hereinabove.” Id. at 3. 

Finally, it was agreed that the guardian ad litem would dismiss

Ms. Rodzon-Harris as a defendant in the wrongful death action,

provided that Ms. Rodzon-Harris waived any interest in the

wrongful death action. 

On June 24, 2004, Magistrate Goldner entered an order

appointing Lee Rosenberg as guardian ad litem for Alex. 

Essentially simultaneiously, the undersigned district judge

Case 1:04-cv-05418-OWW -TAG Document 77 Filed 09/23/05 Page 5 of 7
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 Initially, Lee Rosenberg also requested permission to

apply both his and Alex’s portion of the $100,000 toward the

costs of litigating against the remaining defendants. Alex

Rosenberg and Ms. Rodzen-Harris objected to this request. See

Doc. 49 at 2. The parties later agreed that the best course of

action would be to appoint an independent guardian for Alex. Lee

Rosenberg is no longer requesting to use Alex’s share of the

proceeds to pursue claims against the Colt Parties because all

those claims have been resolved. 

6

entered an order requiring the appointment of a disinterested

individual as guardian for Alex and setting forth certain

procedures that would govern the guardianship. Doc. 25, filed

June 25, 2004. Counsel for Mr. Rosenberg and Ms. Rodzon-Harris

pointed out the conflict to the district court. Docs. 27 and 28,

filed July 1, 2004. The district court amended its order,

adopting the Magistrate Goldner’s decision to appoint Lee

Rosenberg as guardian ad litem. Doc. 29, filed July 2, 2004. 

Plaintiffs then reached an agreement with Craig Hansen’s

insurance carrier and sought court approval of an even

distribution of Hansen’s $100,000 settlement among Lee Rosenberg,

Alex Rosenberg, and Sharrie Rodzen-Harris.1 Attorney Lee

Mitchell Jacobson was appointed Alex’s guardian on June 6, 2005. 

The parties have now reached settlements resolving all of the

claims in this case and now request court approval of Alex’s

participation in the settlement agreements. 

III. DISCUSSION

This is a diversity action. California Code of Civil

Procedure Section 372(a) requires court approval for any

compromise entered into by a guardian ad litem on behalf of a

minor. The court’s role in approving a minor’s settlement is to

Case 1:04-cv-05418-OWW -TAG Document 77 Filed 09/23/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

ensure that “whatever is done is in the minor's best interests.”

Goldberg v. Superior Court, 23 Cal. App. 4th 1378, 1382 (1994) 

At oral argument on the instant motions for approval, Alex’s

court-appointed guardian ad litem, Lee Jacobson, represented that

he had discussed both settlement options with Alex and concluded

that both settlements were in Alex’s best interests. The

settlement between the Colt Parties and Alex calls for dismissal

of all claims and cross-claims without prejudice, leaving Alex

free to renew claims against the Colt Partiess when he reaches

the age of majority. 

Mr. Jacobson represented that the settlement concerning Mr.

Hansen’s insurance policy, evenly distributing the proceeds among

Alex and his parents, is in Alex’s best interest. Alex, through

Mr. Jacobson, expressed interest in having his portion of the

settlement proceeds placed into an structured settlement annuity

that would begin paying annuities when Alex reaches the age of

majority. All parties agreed to this request and the district

court finds that it is in Alex’s best interest to structure his

settlement in this fashion. 

Accordingly, Alex’s agreement in the above-described

settlements resolving all pending claims in this case is

APPROVED.

The parties shall submit a form of judgment consistent with

this memorandum opinion within five days of service of this

order. 

Dated: September 23, 2005 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

 

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05418-OWW -TAG Document 77 Filed 09/23/05 Page 7 of 7