Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02241/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02241-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

15-CV-2241-WVG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF FRANCISCO MANUEL 

CESENA, et al,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-CV-2241-WVG

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 

PETITION TO APPROVE 

SETTLEMENT INVOLVING A 

MINOR

[ECF No. 69]

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte Petition for approval of a settlement

involving a minor, F.C. (or “Minor Plaintiff”). Having considered the moving papers, all

documents lodged directly with the Court, and the information provided at the hearing held

on December 13, 2017, the Court finds the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best

interest of the minor. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ unopposed Petition is GRANTED.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-02241-WVG Document 79 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

15-CV-2241-WVG

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

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Allegations1

On December 24, 2014, decedent Francisco Manuel Cesena crossed into the United

States of America from Mexico at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. (Pet., ECF No. 69 at 3:14-

16.) The decedent had an outstanding warrant for his arrest and was detained at the port of

entry. (Id. at 3:17-19.) Suddenly, and without provocation, the decedent arose from his

seat, leapt over a counter and attacked border patrol agents. (Id. at 3:20-24.) A lengthy

struggle ensued, and border patrol agents used a Taser weapon on the decedent. (SAC, ECF

No. 53 at ¶ 120.) The decedent was restrained, face-down. (Pet. at 4:3-5.) The decedent

stopped breathing and border patrol agents administered CPR while awaiting paramedics.

Cesena died on December 24, 2014.

On February 23, 2017, the Estate of Francisco Manuel Cesena, Manuel Salvador

Cesena, Trinidad Cesena, Jonathan Jose Trinidad Cesena, Lucitania Juliana Cesena, and

the Minor Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, pursuing Bivens claims for

wrongful death, failure to properly supervise and intervene, excessive force, failure to train,

and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.2(See SAC, ECF No. 53.) Plaintiffs

also alleged wrongful death, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress,

and negligence pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. (See id.)

B. The Proposed Settlement and Distribution

The parties came to a global settlement of $350,000, which will be divided equally

amongst the five plaintiffs.3(Pet. at 4:21-24.) Attorney’s fees requested are at the statutory

maximum of 25%, amounting to $87,500. See 28 U.S.C. § 2687. Attorney’s fees attributed

to Minor Plaintiff are $17,500. Plaintiffs assert the cost of litigation is $35,968.28. (Pet. at

5:12-13.) Costs of litigation attributed to Minor Plaintiff are $7,193.60. Thus, the lump sum

 

1 The factual allegations herein are for background purposes only.

2 The case was originally filed on October 7, 2015. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.)

3 The Estate of Francisco Manuel Cesena will dismiss all claims without taking from the settlement. 

(Pet. at 4:21-24.)

Case 3:15-cv-02241-WVG Document 79 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

15-CV-2241-WVG

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

to be paid to Minor Plaintiff is $45,306.40 after fees and costs.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

17(c), “to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638

F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving

minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court to “conduct its 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) (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”).

The Ninth Circuit has also made clear that, in cases involving the settlement of

federal claims, district courtsshould “limit the scope of their review to the question 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,” and

should “evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the

proportion of the total settlement value designated for the adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’

counsel - whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Robidoux,

638 F.3d at 1181-82 (citing Dacany, 573 F.2d at 1078). “So long as the net recovery to

each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery in

similar cases, the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the parties.”

Id. at 1182.

III. ANALYSIS

In light of the facts of the case, the claims brought, and recoveries by similarly

situated plaintiffs, the settlement sum to F.C. is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of

the minor.

This action commenced on October 7, 2015, and the facts of the case have been

Case 3:15-cv-02241-WVG Document 79 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

15-CV-2241-WVG

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

developed over the course of the litigation. The settlement was reached on the eve of

pretrial motions being filed, after the conclusion of all discovery.

The Court has viewed a surveillance camera recording of the encounter between the

decedent and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers. The video was very clear and

there were almost no visual obstructions. The audio portion of the recording, although

cluttered with the sounds of the dramatic activity, was clear enough to hear the officers

ordering the decedent to calm down and to stop resisting (all after the decedent attacked

the agents without provocation and was subdued by a number of officers), along with the

decedent’s profane responses as he continued to resist the officers efforts. The recording

unequivocally shows the decedent was the aggressor. The decedent’s aggressive and near

superhuman strength required many officers to bring him under control, necessitating the

use of a Taser. To the Court, the officers’ use of force was eminently reasonable under the

circumstances.

Whether the agents responded appropriately and employed proper positioning

techniques after the dramatic struggle began and the use of the Taser occurred is a close

call and forms the gravamen of the plaintiffs’ case. Even if plaintiffs’ were to prevail on

liability, the Court believes a more difficult challenge lied ahead for them in proving

damages. The evidence available to the Court showed the decedent was frequently

unemployed, was in and out of jail to the point that he had very little contact with the Minor

Plaintiff and provided very little in the form of fatherly support.

The settlement allows for certainty of recovery for Minor Plaintiff, as opposed to the

uncertainty associated with a jury verdict, given the significant challenges of proving

liability and establishing any meaningful financial support. Furthermore, although the

Petition does not identify any other cases involving circumstances similar to those alleged

in the matter at bar, the Court performed its own review of the case law and finds that

Minor Plaintiff’s net recovery to be fair and reasonable under the circumstances. See, e.g.,

Napier by and through Quiroz v. San Diego County, 2017 WL 5759803 (S.D. Cal.

November 28, 2017) (finding settlement of minor’s claims against San Diego County for

Case 3:15-cv-02241-WVG Document 79 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

15-CV-2241-WVG

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 death of his father for $41,125 fair and reasonable; Swayzer v. City of San Jose, 2011

WL 3471217, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011) (finding settlement of minor's section 1983

claims against the City for $2,054.17 fair and reasonable); Doe ex rel. Scott v. Gill, 2012

WL 1939612, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012) (finding settlement of minor's section 1983

claims for the death of her mother for $7,188 fair and reasonable); Armstrong v. Dossey,

2013 WL 4676541, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2013) (finding settlement of minors' § 1983

claims for their father's death for $22,500 for minor with close relationship to father and

$11,000 to minor with little to no relationship with father fair and reasonable); Frary v.

Cnty. of Marin, 2015 WL 575818 (N.D. Cal. Feb 10, 2015) (finding settlement of minor's

§ 1983 and negligence claims for a net recovery of $73,844.39 fair and reasonable);

Lobaton v. City of San Diego, 2017 WL 2610038, at *3 (finding settlement of minor's

emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims for $10,000.00 fair

and reasonable.).

The method of disbursement also appears to be fair and reasonable. The proceeds of

the settlement will be deposited into a structured settlement annuity. (Pet. at 9:8-17.) The

annuity will pay out to the Minor Plaintiff in four equal payments once the Minor Plaintiff

reaches the age of majority.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the ex parte Petition. It is further

ORDERED that:

(1) Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 17.1(b)(1), any funds recovered by a minor must be

paid and distributed in accordance with California Probate Code §§ 3600 et seq.

(2) No bond is necessary for the establishment of the annuity;

(2) The first accounting for the trust shall be filed with a court of competent

jurisdiction within one year of the establishment of the trusts;

(3) A copy of the executed annuity agreement shall be filed with the Court prior to

the distribution of the annuity; and

(4) The Court makes no specific finding or order with respect to whether the annuity

Case 3:15-cv-02241-WVG Document 79 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

15-CV-2241-WVG

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

satisfies or complies with applicable federal laws or regulations.

(6) The Court will convene an attorneys-only telephonic status conference at 8:30

P.M. on March 21, 2018. On or before March 19, 2018, each attorney intending to

participate in the status conference must lodge, via electronic mail to

efile_gallo@casd.uscourts.gov, a telephone number at which they may be reached

directly and without fail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2018

Case 3:15-cv-02241-WVG Document 79 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6