Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00662/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00662-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E.R. et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING GRANTING AND 

APPROVING PLAINTIFFS‟ PETITION FOR 

APPROVAL OF MINORS‟ SETTLEMENT

(ECF Nos. 94, 98, 99)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

On April 5, 2016, the undersigned conducted a settlement conference in this action at 

which the parties reached a settlement agreement. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiff Ruby Rodrigues 

and Plaintiffs E.R., K.R., and S.R., through their guardian ad litem, Corina Marez, filed a motion 

to grant an unopposed petition for approval of minors‟ settlement. (ECF No. 94.) On May 31, 

2016, the parties filed a stipulation that the Court refer Plaintiffs‟ pending petition for approval 

of minors‟ settlement to the undersigned for the purpose of issuing findings and 

recommendations. (ECF No. 95.) On June 6, 2016, United States District Judge Dale A. Drozd 

granted the parties‟ request and the petition was referred to the undersigned for the purpose of 

issuing findings and recommendations for District Judge Drozd‟s consideration. (ECF No. 96.) 

On June 7, 2016, the Court directed Defendants Correct Care Solutions, LLC (“CCS”), County 

of Stanislaus, and Stanislaus County Sheriff‟s Department to file a statement of non-opposition 

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 100 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 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

2

or a statement indicating intent to file opposition. (ECF No. 97.) On June 7, 2016, Defendants 

filed statements of non-opposition. (ECF Nos. 98, 99.) 

The Court has reviewed the relevant portions of the record and the petition for approval 

of minors‟ settlement. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court finds this matter suitable for 

decision without oral argument. Having considered the moving papers and court record, the 

Court issues the following findings and recommendations recommending granting Plaintiffs‟ 

petition for approval of minors‟ settlement. 

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this action in the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus, on 

February 4, 2013. On March 12, 2014, Plaintiffs amended the complaint in the Superior Court of 

California, County of Stanislaus. On May 2, 2014, Defendant CCS timely removed the action to 

this Court. On July 9, 2014, the Court granted CCS‟s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. 

On July 14, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 37.) On April 8, 

2015, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for leave to file a third amended complaint, which 

the Court granted on April 15, 2015. (ECF Nos. 61, 63.) On July 7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an ex 

parte application for leave to file a fourth amended complaint (“FAC”), which the Court granted 

on July 14, 2015. (ECF Nos. 67, 68.) On July 14, 2015, the FAC was filed. (ECF No. 69.) 

Plaintiffs bring this action for negligence, medical negligence, and civil rights violations. 

On January 12, 2012, decedent Steven Virgil Rodrigues was arrested by the Turlock 

Police Department and taken to Stanislaus County Men‟s Jail. FAC ¶ 12. Upon arrival, as he 

was “crying hysterically and visibly shaking,” decedent received a medical screening which 

included questions about his mental health. Id. When asked whether he was experiencing 

suicidal ideation, he responded affirmatively. Id. The intake report also noted that decedent had 

previously attempted suicide and was suffering from mental health problems requiring referral to 

special housing and routine follow up. Id. On January 18, 2012, decedent was placed in a safety 

cell after expressing to CCS‟s employees that he “didn‟t want to be in the world anymore” and 

that he wanted to hang himself. Id. He was described as “severely depressed” and “hopeless.” 

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 100 Filed 06/16/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Id. Nonetheless, he was returned to a regular cell the next day. Id.

On February 17, 2012, decedent attempted to commit suicide by lacerating his arm. Id. ¶ 

13. His attempt was unsuccessful, and he was taken for treatment to the Doctors Medical Center 

(“DMC”) in Modesto, California. Id. Upon his release back to the Jail, doctors instructed he be 

placed on a seventy-two-hour hold because he remained suicidal. Id. Consistent with this 

instruction, decedent was placed in a safety cell upon his return to the Jail. Id. ¶ 14. However, 

he remained there for only sixteen hours before being transferred to a regular cell. Id. On 

February 19, 2012, decedent committed suicide by hanging. Id. ¶ 15. 

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Local Rule 202(b) states that “[n]o claim by or against a minor or incompetent person 

may be settled or compromised absent an order by the Court approving the settlement or 

compromise.” Any application for approval of a proposed settlement or compromise must 

disclose, among other things, the following:

the age and sex of the minor or incompetent, 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....

Local Rule 202(b)(2). Additionally, when, as here, the minor is represented by an attorney, the 

representation must be disclosed to the Court, including the terms of employment and “whether 

the attorney became involved in the application at the instance of the party against whom the 

causes of action are asserted, directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands in any 

relationship to that party; and whether the attorney has received or expects to receive any 

compensation, from whom, and the amount.” Local Rule 202(c).

“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 

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 100 Filed 06/16/16 Page 3 of 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

4

settlement serves the best interests of the minor.‟ ” Id. However, in Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit 

cautioned that this inquiry “requires only that the district court consider whether the net recovery 

of each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable, without regard to the amount received by adult coplaintiffs and what they have agreed to pay plaintiffs‟ counsel.” Id. at 1182 (holding that district 

court erred in denying settlement based solely on the proportion of the settlement going to 

plaintiffs‟ counsel).

III.

DISCUSSION

 The petition for approval of minors‟ settlement adequately sets forth all of the 

requirements in Local Rule 202(b)(2) and 202(c). E.R., K.R., and S.R. are represented by their 

mother, Corina Marez, who has been appointed their guardian ad litem. E.R. is a seven-year-old 

female, K.R. is a six year-old-male, and S.R. is a five-year-old female. (ECF No. 94 at 3, 7-8.) 

E.R., K.R., and S.R. are represented by Lynn & O‟Brien, LLP. Counsel accepted their 

engagement in this action for a contingency fee and the contingency fee agreement provides for a 

forty percent attorney fee recovery, but counsel are only requesting thirty-seven percent attorney 

fee recovery. (ECF No. 94-1, Lynn Decl. ¶ 9.) Counsel represent that they did not become 

involved in this matter at the instance of any party whom the causes of action are asserted, they 

are not employed by any other party or insurance carrier involved in this matter, and they have 

not received any compensation for their services to date. (Lynn Decl. ¶ 14-16.) 

The essential terms of the settlement are that Defendant CCS will pay $125,000 with 

$57,000 to be paid for annuity purchases for the minor Plaintiffs from Liberty Life Assurance

Company of Boston and $68,000 to the Client Trust Account of Lynn & O‟Brien, LLP, and 

Defendant County of Stanislaus will pay $25,000 to the Client Trust Account of Lynn & 

O‟Brien, LLP. (ECF No. 94 at 4.) 

Plaintiffs have agreed that the settlement proceeds are to be distributed equally among the 

four Plaintiffs, E.R, K.R., S.R., and Ruby Rodrigues. (ECF No. 94 at 4.) Plaintiffs‟ counsel is 

requesting $55,500 in attorneys‟ fees and $18,500 in costs. (ECF No. 94 at 4-6.) After 

deducting the requested attorneys‟ fees of $55,500 from the settlement of $150,000, the 

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 100 Filed 06/16/16 Page 4 of 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

5

remaining $94,500 is to be divided equally among the four Plaintiffs so that each Plaintiff 

receives $23,625. (ECF No. 94 at 4-7.) Plaintiffs have agreed to equally split the costs among 

the four Plaintiffs, so $4,625 in costs is deduced from each Plaintiff‟s $23,625 recovery. (ECF 

No. 94 at 6.) Therefore, after deducting requested attorneys‟ fees and costs, each Plaintiff‟s net 

recovery is $19,000. (ECF No. 94 at 7.) 

Plaintiffs contend that the case involved a great risk for damages because decedent faced 

a long period of incarceration if he was convicted on the charges that he molested a minor 

relative and he would not have been able to provide financial and emotional support to minor

Plaintiffs during his incarceration. (Lynn Decl. ¶ 12.) Also, Plaintiffs note that the first offer in 

this case was made by Defendants at the settlement conference on April 5, 2016, after two years 

of litigation. (Lynn Decl. ¶ 12.) In addition, net recovery to each minor Plaintiff is consistent 

with the average recovery in similar cases. See E.S. by and through Gonzalez v. City of Visalia, 

No. 1:13-CV-01697-LJO-BAM, 2015 WL 6956837 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015) (approving minor‟s 

compromise for net payment of $130,444.83 in action involving the shooting and killing of 

minor‟s father); Armstrong v. Dossey, No. 1:11-CV-01632-SKO, 2013 WL 4676541 (E.D. Cal. 

Aug. 30, 2013) (finding fair and reasonable settlement of minors‟ section 1983 claims for their 

father‟s death for $22,500 and $11,000 respectively between the minors); Doe ex rel. Scott v. 

Gill, Nos. C 11-4759 CW, C 11-5009 CW, C 11-5083 CW, 2012 WL 1939612 (N.D. Cal. May 

29, 2012) (approving minor‟s compromise in the net amount of $7,188.85 in action involving the 

shooting and killing of minor‟s mother by police officers); Swayzer v. City of San Jose, No. 

C10-03119 HRL, 2011 WL 3471217 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011) (approving minor‟s compromise 

for net amount of $2,054.17 in action involving alleged wrongful death of minor‟s father during 

his arrest); cf. Cotton ex rel. McClure v. City of Eureka, No. C 08-4386 SBA, 2012 WL 6052519 

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2012) (approving minor‟s compromise for wrongful death of minor‟s father 

by police officers in the net amount of $2,646,765.90; settlement occurred during pendency of 

appeal, which followed jury verdict in the amount of $4,000,000 in compensatory damages 

awarded to minor plaintiff). The Court, having considered the record, the unopposed petition for 

approval of minors‟ settlement, the terms of the settlement, and the discussions at the settlement 

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 100 Filed 06/16/16 Page 5 of 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

6

conference before the undersigned, finds that the net settlement amount distributed to each minor 

Plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable in light of the facts of the case and the specific 

claims. 

Additionally, the parties have agreed to the purchase of structured annuities and 

payments. Plaintiffs propose that settlement checks in the amount of $19,000 each be issued to 

purchase a structured annuity for E.R, K.R., and S.R. by July 31, 2016. (ECF No. 94-2 at 3.) On 

behalf of E.R., the check will be made payable to Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston 

and periodic payments will be made by Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston beginning 

on December 12, 2026, when E.R. is eighteen. (ECF No. 94-2 at 6-7.) The payments to E.R. 

shall proceed as follows:

$2,500 payment on December 12, 2026, when E.R. is eighteen;

$5,000 payment on December 12, 2029, when E.R. is twenty-one; and

$22,724 payment on December 12, 2032, when E.R. is twenty-four.

(ECF No. 94-2 at 6-7.) The periodic payments shall be mailed or made by electronic funds 

transfer to E.R. (ECF No. 94-2 at 7.) 

On behalf of K.R., the check will be made payable to Liberty Life Assurance Company 

of Boston and periodic payments will be made by Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston 

beginning on November 5, 2027, when K.R. is eighteen. (ECF No. 94-2 at 9-10.) The payments 

to K.R. shall proceed as follows: 

$2,500 payment on November 5, 2027, when K.R. is eighteen;

$5,000 payment on November 5, 2030, when K.R. is twenty-one; and

$24,065 payment on November 5, 2033, when K.R. is twenty-four.

(ECF No. 94-2 at 9-10.) The periodic payments shall be mailed or made by electronic funds 

transfer to K.R. (ECF No. 94-2 at 10.) 

On behalf of S.R., the check will be made payable to Liberty Life Assurance Company of 

Boston and periodic payments will be made by Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston 

beginning on December 16, 2028, when S.R. is eighteen. (ECF No. 94-2 at 12-13.) The 

payments to S.R. shall proceed as follows:

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 100 Filed 06/16/16 Page 6 of 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

7

$2,500 payment on December 16, 2028, when S.R. is eighteen;

$5,000 payment on December 16, 2031, when S.R. is twenty-one; and

$25,872 payment on December 16, 2034, when S.R. is twenty-four.

(ECF No. 94-2 at 12-13.) The periodic payments shall be mailed or made by electronic funds 

transfer to S.R. (ECF No. 94-2 at 13.) 

Each structured annuity spreads the distribution of funds over a lengthy period of time 

and delays payment of the largest portion until the minors are twenty-four, which increases the 

payout and protects the minors from potential loss or waste of a single lump sum payment at 

eighteen. Therefore, the Court finds that the structured annuities are reasonable and in the best 

interests of the minors. 

IV.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition to approve the 

settlement of the claims for minors E.R., K.R., and S.R., through their guardian ad litem, Corina

Marez, be APPROVED and GRANTED as follows:

1. The settlement of minors E.R., K.R., and S.R.‟s action against Defendants in the 

amount of $150,000 be approved; and

2. Defendant CCS pay $125,000 as follows:

a. $19,000 to be paid for an annuity purchase for E.R. from Liberty Life Assurance 

Company of Boston;

b. $19,000 to be paid for an annuity purchase for K.R. from Liberty Life Assurance 

Company of Boston;

c. $19,000 to be paid for an annuity purchase for S.R. from Liberty Life Assurance 

Company of Boston; and

d. $68,000 to the Client Trust Account of Lynn & O‟Brien, LLP; and

3. Annuity payments be made payable and be issued directly to:

a. E.R. in the amounts of $2,500 on December 12, 2026, $5,000 on December 12, 

2029, and $22,724 on December 12, 2032;

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 100 Filed 06/16/16 Page 7 of 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

8

b. K.R. in the amounts of $2,500 on November 5, 2027, $5,000 on November 5, 

2030, and $24,065 on November 5, 2033; and

c. S.R. in the amounts of $2,500 on December 16, 2028, $5,000 on December 16, 

2031, and $25,872 on December 16, 2034; and

4. Defendant County of Stanislaus pay $25,000 to the Client Trust Account of 

Lynn & O‟Brien, LLP; and

5. Attorneys Lynn & O‟Brien, LLP, be paid the sum of $55,000 in attorneys‟ fees 

and $18,500 for costs incurred representing Plaintiffs.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to District Judge Drozd, 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 (14) 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 constitute a waiver of the right to appeal the District Court‟s order. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 

Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 100 Filed 06/16/16 Page 8 of 8