Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00604/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00604-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUADALUPE CASTANEDA, CASE NO. 1: 05 CV-0604 OWW DLB

a minor, by and through her Guardian

ad Litem, RUMUALDO CASTANEDA,

et.al,

Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON

PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S

vs. COMPROMISE

(Doc. 65)

ROBERT WENDELL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

INTRODUCTION

The verified petition of Guadalupe Castaneda by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Rumualdo

Castaneda came on for hearing for approval of the proposed compromise of the above named minor

against defendants Robert Wendell, Dalila Hernandez, Luciana Naldi, Livingston High School and

Merced Union High School District on July 14, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 9 of the above entitled

court. Appearing on behalf of the minor and her Guardian was attorney Lazaro Salazar. 

BACKGROUND

The minor Guadalupe Castaneda is a female born September 19, 1990 and is approximately

fifteen years of age. This action arises out of an incident that occurred on December 4, 2004 in which

Livingston High School vice-principal Dalila Hernandez and physical education teacher Luciana Naldi

came to the girl’s locker room at Livingston High School and detained over 67 female students,

Case 1:05-cv-00604-LJO -DLB Document 75 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 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

2

including plaintiffs, in an effort to locate $21.00 reported missing during a physical education class and

personally detained and searched students, back packs, purses and personal belongings. Not having

found the missing $21.00 after said searches, vice-principal Dalila Hernandez and physical education

teacher Luciana Naldi, dismissed other students but continued to detain and otherwise refused to release

the plaintiffs. It is alleged that vice principal Dalila Hernandez then, after the initial detention, contacted

principal Robert Wendell, who expressly approved, permitted and directed both Dalila Hernandez and

Luciana Naldi to force the plaintiffs to enter an office area within the girl’s locker room and submit to

a strip search wherein the plaintiffs were forced to undress to their bras and panties. Said forced

submission to a strip search was conducted near a large window where other students present at the time

could and did observe plaintiffs as they were forced to submit to the above described search.

The detention, personal search and strip search of plaintiffs did not turn up the missing $21.00

and at no time were charges ever filed against any of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, all young high school

students, were each highly embarrassed and humiliated by the incident. Following the incident the girls

were subject to jokes and teasing by other students at their school. When the well liked principal, Robert

Wendell, was transferred to another school and demoted to the position of teacher, the girls were further

harassed by other students that blamed them for the actions taken against Mr. Wendell. The incident

has made their high school experience extremelyunpleasant. Plaintiffs sustained no permanent physical

injuries from this incident.

This action was filed on May 4, 2005. By way of settlement, Guadalupe Castaneda, by and

through her Guardian ad Litem Rumualdo Castaneda, has accepted a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Section 68 Offer of Judgment served by defendants Robert Wendell; Dalila Hernandez, Luciana Naldi,

Livingston High School and Merced Union High School District, for the sum of $45,000.00. 

Petitioner seeks approval for payment out of the settlement proceeds of attorneys fees and costs

in the total amount of $12,060.47 payable as follows: $1080.62 payable to Perez, Williams & Medina

for reimbursement of case costs; and $10,979.85 (25% of $43,919.38) payable to Perez, Williams &

Medina for attorneys fees. Petitioners propose that the balance of the settlement proceeds of $32,939.53

be used to purchase US Treasury Bonds to mature after Guadalupe turns 18 years of age, or September

19, 2008. 

Case 1:05-cv-00604-LJO -DLB Document 75 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 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

3

DISCUSSION

This Court’s Local Rule 17-202 addresses settlementsfor minors and provides in pertinent part:

(b) Settlement. No claim by . . . a minor . . . may be settled or compromised

absent court order by the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge approving the settlement

or compromise.

. . .

(2) Such application [for minor’s compromise] shall disclose, among

other things, 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 or other consideration was determined, including such additional

information as may be required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the

settlement or compromise . . .

. . .

(c) Disclosure of Attorney’s Interest. When the minor . . . is represented by an

attorney, it shall be disclosed to the Court by whom and the terms under which the

attorney was employed . . . and whether the attorney has received or expects to receive

any compensation, from whom, and the amount.

. . .

(e) Payment of Judgment. Whenever money . . . is recovered on behalf of a

minor . . . the money . . . will be (1) disbursed to the representative pursuant to state law

upon a showing that he is the duly qualified representative under state law, (2) disbursed

otherwise pursuant to state law, or (3) disbursed pursuant to such other order as the Court

deems proper for the protection of the minor . . .

F.R.Civ.P. 17(c) empowers a district court to make such “order as it deems proper for the

protection” of a minor. “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.” 2 Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide, Federal Procedure

Before Trial (2002) Pretrial Conference and Settlement Procedures, para. 15:138, p. 15-42 (emphasis

in original). A settlement for a minor and attorney 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. A leading

California practice guide observes:

Courts vary in their fee approval policies. All will consider the time expended

and the complexity of the case. But, in contingency fee cases, most courts require a

showing of “good cause” to award more than 25% of any recovery. [Citations omitted.]

Case 1:05-cv-00604-LJO -DLB Document 75 Filed 07/18/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Attorneys who believe their work deserves a fee higher than that usually approved

must be prepared to demonstrate this to the judge.

2 Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial (2002) Settlement Procedures, paras.

12:576 and 12:577, p. 12(II)-14.

The present petition substantially includes the information required by this Court’s Local Rule

17-202(b)(2) and (c) to address the details of the proposed compromise. The $32,939.53 portion for the

minor is reasonable based on the injuries sustained. The proposed payment of the monies for the minor

is also reasonable and in her best interests. The requested attorneys fees and costs totaling $12,060.47

are reasonable and properly determined. The minor’s $32,939.53 share should appropriately be used

to purchase US Treasury Bonds to mature on or after the date she reaches the age of majority.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For the reasons discussed above, this Court RECOMMENDS to:

1. GRANT the Motion to Approve Consent Judgment Rule of Civil Procedure 68 Offer of

Judgment Resolving Claim of Minor;

2. ORDER the minor’s $32,939.53 share to be used to purchase US Treasury Bonds to

mature on or after the minor reaches the age of majority; and

3. PERMIT $12,060.47 to be paid to Perez, Williams & Medina for fees and costs 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to United States District Judge Oliver W.

Wanger, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 72-304. Within ten (10) days

after being served with a copy, any party may file written 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 Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 17, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00604-LJO -DLB Document 75 Filed 07/18/06 Page 4 of 4