Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00708/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00708-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

11-cv-0708-GPC-AGS

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

Mark MANN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 11-cv-0708-GPC-AGS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO APPROVE MINORS’

COMPROMISE (ECF No. 370)

Petitioner Bruce Paul, Court-appointed guardian ad litem for minor plaintiffs 

N.G.P.M., M.N.A.M., M.C.G.M., and N.E.H.M., seeks an order approving a proposed 

settlement of the minors’ claims against all defendants. Because the settlement serves the 

minors’ best interests, the Court recommends that the motion be granted. 

BACKGROUND

This suit arises from allegations that defendants, San Diego County and County 

social workers, wrongfully removed the minor plaintiffs from the care, custody, and control 

of their parents. (ECF No. 370, at 2.) The minor plaintiffs were then taken to a County 

shelter care facility and subjected to medical examinations without the presence, notice, or 

consent of their parents. Petitioner does not represent that any minor required medical 

treatment as a result, nor did they seek special damages for psychological treatment. (See 

id. at 2-3.) According to petitioner, the minors remember very few details about the 

Case 3:11-cv-00708-GPC-BGS Document 374 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

11-cv-0708-GPC-AGS

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

incident, and their parents incurred most of the harm. (Id. at 9.) 

In September 2016, plaintiffs and defendants reached a settlement on some claims; 

that settlement was approved by Judge Curiel on September 26, 2016. (ECF No. 370, 

at 3-4.) On December 12, 2019, the parties reached a settlement as to the remaining claims. 

(Id. at 5.) Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Confirm the Minors’ Compromise provides that 

the four minor children will each receive $50,000, made payable to Pacific Life & Annuity 

Services, Inc., to fund future periodic payments. (ECF No. 370, at 10.) These payments 

start when each minor turns 18. (See ECF No. 370-2, at 2; ECF No. 370-3, at 2; 

ECF No. 370-4, at 2; ECF No. 370-5, at 2.) The total payout to each minor plaintiff will 

be:

1. N.G.P.M. - $65,946.28

2. M.N.A.M. - $71,859.21

3. M.C.G.M. - $71,859.21

4. N.E.H.M. - $71,859.21

(ECF No. 370, at 8-9.)

DISCUSSION

District courts have “a special duty” to “safeguard the interests of litigants who are 

minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). In the settlement 

context, that duty requires the court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the 

settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. (citations omitted). The Court is 

required to limit the scope of its review to “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 

minors’ specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1182. “Most importantly, the 

district court should evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without 

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

plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id.

Having reviewed the complaint and the parties’ briefing, the Court is intimately 

familiar with this case’s facts and legal issues. With that experience in mind, the Court 

Case 3:11-cv-00708-GPC-BGS Document 374 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

11-cv-0708-GPC-AGS

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

recognizes that litigation is always uncertain and concludes that the proposed settlement is 

fair, reasonable, and in the minors’ best interests.

Moreover, the minors’ recovery in this case is reasonable in light of those approved 

in similar cases. See, e.g., B.R. v. Cty. of Orange, No. 8:15-cv-00626-CJC-PJW, ECF 

No. 84, at 2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018) (approving $50,000 settlement for minor who was 

removed from mother’s custody without cause, but suffered no injury); Bruno v. Cty. of 

Los Angeles, No. SACV 17-01301-CJC(JEx), ECF No. 71, at 4, 8 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2019) 

(approving a settlement of $60,000 per minor for minors who were removed from their 

parents’ custody and subjected to medical examinations and vaccinations without a warrant 

or parental consent); Xoss v. Cty. of Los Angeles, No. 2:12-cv-1400-PSG-RZ, ECF 

No. 150, at 2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2014) (approving total settlement of $122,959.80 for two 

minors who were removed from their parents’ custody without a warrant).

Accordingly, the Court recommends:

1. The motion to approve the settlement be GRANTED. 

2. The compromise and settlement of the claims of the minors N.G.P.M., M.N.A.M., 

M.C.G.M., and N.E.H.M. be approved as fair and reasonable and in the best interests 

of the minor plaintiffs.

Any objections to this report and recommendation are due by March 10, 2020. See 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of being 

served with it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 

Dated: February 25, 2020

Case 3:11-cv-00708-GPC-BGS Document 374 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3