Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01051/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01051-26/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This matter arises out of the death of David Silva which, it is claimed, was caused by the 

application of excessive and unreasonable use of force by various law enforcement officers. Minor 

Plaintiffs MLS, CJS, CRS and EZS, are surviving children of the decedent, and seek approval of the 

settlement reached with Defendants, by and through their guardian ad litem Judy Garlick (“Petitioner”). 

(Doc. 238) For the following reasons, the Court recommends the motion for approval of the settlement 

be GRANTED.

I. Factual and Procedural History

Plaintiffs initiated this action, alleging Defendants are responsible for the wrongful death of 

David Silva, who was the boyfriend of Plaintiff Tara Garlick, the father of the minor plaintiffs, and the 

 

1 Due to an error made in the original Findings and Recommendation to grant the petition and to clarify certain 

other matters, the Court GRANTS the stipulation (Doc. 244) to amend the original Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 

238). The Court ORDERS the original Findings and Recommendations to be WITHDRAWN.

TARA GARLICK, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01051 - LJO - JLT

ORDER WITHDRAWING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 242)

AMENDED1FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING APPROVAL 

OF THE COMPROMISE ON BEHALF OF MINOR 

PLAINTIFFS MLS, CJS, CRS, AND EZS (Doc. 

238)

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 245 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 8
2

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

son of Plaintiffs Merri and Salvador Silva. (See generally Docs. 2, 78) Plaintiffs assert eleven causes 

of action in the Second Amended Complaint: (1) excessive force in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment; (2) “integral participation” in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (3) failure to intervene

in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (4) denial of medical care in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment; (5) violation of the substantive due process rights of Salvador Silva2, Merri Silva, Tara 

Garlick, the minor Plaintiffs, and David Silva; (6) municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (7) 

failure to train; (8) unconstitutional customs or policies; (9) battery; (10) negligence; and (11) a 

violation of the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 (See generally Doc. 78)

II. Settlement Approval Standards

No settlement or compromise of “a claim by or against a minor or incompetent person” is 

effective unless it is approved by the Court. Local Rule 202(b). The purpose of requiring the Court’s 

approval is to provide an additional level of oversight to ensure that the child’s interests are protected. 

Toward this end, a party seeking approval of the settlement must disclose:

the age and sex of the minor, the nature of the causes of action to be settled or 

compromised, the facts and circumstances out of which the causes of action arose, 

including the time, place and persons involved, the manner in which the compromise 

amount . . . was determined, including such additional information as may be required 

to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement or compromise, and, if a 

personal injury claim, the nature and extent of the injury with sufficient particularity to 

inform the Court whether the injury is temporary or permanent.

Local Rule 202(b)(2). 

The Ninth Circuit determined that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) imposes on the Court 

the responsibility to safeguard the interests of child-litigants. Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 

1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, the Court is obligated to independently investigate the fairness of the 

settlement even where the parent has recommended it. Id., at 1181; see also 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”). Rather than focusing on the amount of fees to be awarded, the Court must evaluate whether 

 

2 Chris Siva, the surviving son of Salvador Silva, was designated as the successor in interest following the death 

of Salvador Silva. (Doc. 113)

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 245 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 8
3

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

the net amount to the child is fair and reasonable “without regard to the proportion of the total 

settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel” and “in light of the facts of the 

case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181-1182. 

III. Discussion and Analysis

The petition for approval of the settlement reached on behalf of minors MLS, CJS, CRS and 

EZS sets forth the information required by Local Rule 202(b)(2). MLS is thirteen years old, CJS is 

eleven years old, CRS is seven years old, and EZS is five years old. (Doc. 238-1 at 2-3) MLS, CJS, 

and CRS are the daughters of the decedent, and CRS is the decedent’s son. (Id.) The children are 

currently residing with their mother, Tara Garlick, in Nebraska. (Id.) 

Petitioner Judy Silva—the guardian ad litem for MLS, CJS, CRS and EZS—asserts that the 

minor’s damages “arise from (1) injuries suffered by their father, for which they can recover damages 

as their father’s heirs and successor in interest, and (2) damages for the violation of their constitutional 

right to a familial relationship with their father and individual loss of their father’s financial support, 

as well as the loss of love, comfort, affection, society and companionship that they would have shared 

with their father.” (Doc. 238-1 at 4) Defendants have agreed to pay $3,000,000.00 to Plaintiffs MLS, 

CJS, CRS, EZS, Merri Silva and Chris Silva.3 (Id. at 5) From this amount, $1,200,000 would go to 

the minor Plaintiffs. (Id. at 6)

A. Award to Minors MLS, CJS, CRS, EZS

After the payment of the proposed attorney fees and costs, the sum of $1,200,000 is to be 

allocated among MLS, CJS, CRS, EZS. (Doc. 238-1 at 6) Thus, each minor will receive $300,000.00 

from the settlement. (Id.) The money allocated to the children will “be paid by Starr Indemnity and 

Liability Company; Starr Companies for the purchase of an annuity on behalf of [each minor] 

plaintiff.” (See id. at 6- 11) Petitioner reports, “The parties have arranged for the purchase of a tax-free 

structured settlement annuity [policies] from Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance Company of Nebraska 

through broker Tom Stevenson of Atlas Settlements.” (See id. at 7-10) With the annuity policies, MLS 

has a guaranteed benefit of $446,000.00; CJS has a guaranteed benefit of $503,500.00; CRS has a 

 

3 The total settlement in this action is $3,400,000.00. (Doc. 238-1 at 6) The remaining $400,000.00 is to be split 

between the minor Plaintiff J.S., also a child of the decedent (in the amount of $180,000) and plaintiff Tara Garlick (in the 

amount of $220,000). (Id.)

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 245 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 8
4

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

guaranteed benefit of $551,500.00; and EZS has a guaranteed benefit of $593,000.00. (Id.) Thus, the 

total of the guaranteed benefits is $2,094,000.00. 

B. Proposed Attorney Fees and Costs

Out of the settlement proceeds, Plaintiffs’ counsel will be awarded fees in the amount of 

$1,2000,000.00 and reimbursement for costs totaling $130,000.00. (Doc. 238-1 at 12) Accordingly, 

the total requested by counsel from the settlement is $1,330,000.00. (Id.) Neil Gehlawat—counsel for 

MLS, CJS, CRS, EZS, Merri Silva, and Chris Silva—reports that the plaintiffs entered into a retainer 

agreement “for a 40 percent contingency fee.” (Doc. 283-3 at 2, Gehlawat Decl. ¶ 4) He reports the 

actions taken by the attorneys in the course of the litigation include:

(a) Investigation of the facts and circumstances of the incident;

(b) Filing the government claim, filing the 1stAmended Complaint and the 2nd Amended 

Complaint;

(c) Filing a motion for leave to amend, opposing 2 motions to dismiss, opposing 3 

motions for summary judgment, filing 6 motions in limine and opposing 23 motions in 

limine, and attending and filing briefs for a settlement conference and mediation.

(Id. at 3, ¶ 5) In addition, Mr. Gehlawat reports the attorneys “collectively took and defended over 50 

depositions in the case.” (Id.) Based upon the number of hours expended during the course of the

action, Mr. Gehlawat asserts that “[t]he total attorneys’ fees amongst the 4 attorneys involved in the 

case from the two firms exceeded $1.2 million at the time the case was settled.” (Id., ¶ 6) Further, 

Plaintiffs’ counsel identified costs that exceed the amount requested through this motion. (See Doc. 

238-2 at 2-16)

Based upon the actions taken by counsel and the costs expended in the action—and the fact 

that Plaintiffs’ guardian ad litem indicates her assent to the fees and costs requested (Doc. 283-1 at 12) 

—the Court finds the award is reasonable. 

C. Recovery in Similar Actions

As noted above, the Court must consider the outcome of similar cases to determine whether the 

sum to settle the children’s claims is reasonable. See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181; Salmeron, 724 F.2d 

at 1363. Although Petitioner did not identify any similar actions to support the approval of the 

minors’ compromise, the Court finds the recovery is appropriate considering those received by minors 

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 245 Filed 07/22/16 Page 4 of 8
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

in other actions. 

For example, in Cotton ex rel. McClure v. City of Eureka, Cal., 2012 WL 6052519 at *1-2 

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2012), the settlement for the child, following the death of her father after an 

altercation with police officers, was in the amount of $4,000,000. The court approved the minor’s 

compromise and, after awarding fees and costs, the net amount to be received by the child was 

$2,646,765.90. Id. However, because the settlement required the proceeds to be invested in annuities, 

the total future payments to be received by the child would be $5,926,754.89. Id.

The settlement here exceeds those amounts awarded to other minors who suffered the loss of a 

parent during encounters with police officers. See, e.g., E.S. v. City of Visalia, 2015 WL 6956837

(E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015) (approving a minor’s compromise for net payment of $130,444.83 in action 

involving the shooting and killing of minor’s father); Armstrong v. Dossey, 2013 WL 4676541 (E.D. 

Cal. Aug. 30, 2013) (finding fair and reasonable settlement of minors’ claims for their father’s death 

for $22,500 and $11,000 respectively); Doe ex rel. Scott v. Gill, 2012 WL 1939612, (N.D. Cal. May 

29, 2012) (approving a minor’s compromise in the net amount of $7,188.85 where minor’s mother was 

shot and killed by police officers); Swayzer v. City of San Jose, 2011 WL 3471217 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 

2011) (approving a minor’s compromise for net amount of $2,054.17 in the wrongful death action, 

where the minor’s father died during the course of his arrest).

Based upon the information provided in the motion and the supporting documents, and 

considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case—and most particularly the excellent 

result achieved compared to similar actions—the Court finds the settlement agreement is fair,

reasonable, and in the best interests of the children.

IV. Findings and Recommendations

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED: that the petition to approve 

settlement of the minor’s claims be APPROVED as follows:

1. That the motion to approve settlement of the minors’ claims be GRANTED;

2. Defendants, County of Kern and its insurer, Starr Indemnity and Liability Company, 

Starr Companies and Defendants State of California and their insurer be DIRECTED to 

pay the combined sum of $3,400,000 in consideration of a full and final release and 

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 245 Filed 07/22/16 Page 5 of 8
6

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

discharge of and from all claims arising from this action.

The allocation between the defendants of the total overall settlement of the 

entire case is $2,992,000.00 to the County of Kern and its insurer, Starr Indemnity and 

Liability Company, and $408,000.00 to the State of California. It is agreed that under 

no circumstances shall the negotiated contribution and allocation of the overall total 

settlement by the defendants exceed these sums;

3. Of the full settlement, that $3,000,000 be directed to settle the claims, charges, and 

demands of Plaintiffs MLS, CJS, CRS, EZS and Merri Silva and Chris Silva;

4. From the above settlement money, the defendants County of Kern be DIRECTED to 

pay $1,200,000.00—to be paid by Starr Indemnity and Liability Company; Starr 

Companies— for the purchase of a annuities on behalf of CJS, CRS, EZS. The parties 

SHALL purchase a tax free structured settlement annuity policy from Berkshire 

Hathaway Life Insurance Company of Nebraska through broker Tom Stevenson of 

Atlas Settlements. The defendants County of Kern, Sgt. Douglas Sword, Deputy Ryan 

Greer, Deputy Tanner Miller, Deputy Jeffrey Kelly, Deputy Luis Almanza, Deputy 

Brian Brock and Deputy David Stephens shall execute a Settlement Agreement and 

Release and execute a “Qualified Assignment” of their obligation to make periodic 

payments pursuant thereto in compliance with I.R.C. Section 104(a)(2) and Section 

130(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Said assignment shall be 

made to BHG Structured Settlements, Inc. (“Assignee”). Upon doing so, the defendants 

will no longer be obligated to make further periodic payments and the Assignee will be 

the plaintiffs’ sole obligor with respect to the future periodic payments;

4. The Assignee be DIRECTED to purchase a structured settlement annuities for 

$300,000.00 each for MLS, CJS, CRS, and EZS through Berkshire Hathaway Life

Insurance Company of Nebraska. The payments shall be assigned to BHG Structured 

Settlements, Inc. by way of a Qualified Assignment by the County's Insurer Starr 

Indemnity and Liability Company, Starr Companies. The payments will be guaranteed 

through the issuance of a Letter of Guarantee from Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance 

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 245 Filed 07/22/16 Page 6 of 8
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

Company of Nebraska, assumed under the Qualified Assignment. In accordance with 

the structured settlement agreement, the Assignee will fund the obligation to make 

payments through the purchase of annuities from BHG Structured Settlements, Inc. 

Said annuities shall provide guaranteed periodic payments (subject to annuity rates in 

effect at the time of purchase); 

5. The Assignee be DIRECTED to file receipt of the purchase of the annuities within 

sixty days of any order adopting these Recommendations; 

6. The County Defendants be DIRECTED to pay the sum of $1,440,000.00 to Chain ǀ

Cohn ǀ Stiles, Chris Silva and Merri Silva for the payment of attorney fees and costs, 

and the settlement amount owed to Chris Silva and Merri Silva;

7. The State of California, on behalf of CHP Officers Michael Phillips and Michael Bright 

be DIRECTED to pay the sum of $360,000.00 to Chain ǀ Cohn ǀ Stiles, Chris Silva and 

Merri Silva.

Although this required payment is being made at the request of the affected 

plaintiffs and their counsel, this court recognizes and finds that the State's required 

payment provides adequate consideration for settlement of the claims of all requesting 

plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs MLS, CJS, CRS, EZS, Merri Silva and Chris Silva; 

8. Payment to Chain ǀ Cohn ǀ Stiles and the Law Office of Dale K. Galipo in the sum of 

$1,330,000.00 representing all claims for attorney fees and costs incurred on behalf of 

the plaintiffs MLS, CJS, CRS, EZS, Merri Silva and Chris Silva (in the amount of 

$1,200,000) and costs (in the amount of $130,000), be APPROVED; and

9. That the parties’ be DIRECTED to file with the Court a stipulation for dismissal of the 

action with prejudice, and lodge a separate order, no later than ten days after these 

findings and recommendations are adopted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 245 Filed 07/22/16 Page 7 of 8
8

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

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district judge’s 

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 245 Filed 07/22/16 Page 8 of 8