Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00349/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00349-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441pi Removal- Personal Injury

---

1

3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS

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

MILA SHEN, by and through her 

guardian ad litem Peggy Shen Brewster; 

EDWIN SHEN, an individual; JOYCE 

SHEN, an individual; ZOE SHEN and 

VESPER SHEN, by and through their 

guardian ad litem Peggy Shen Brewster,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CLUB MED SAS, a corporation; CLUB 

MED SALES, INC.; CLUB MED 

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; and 

DOES 1 to 50,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; and

(2) GRANTING THE PETITIONS 

FOR MINORS COMPROMISE

[Doc. Nos. 40 and 41]

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are the petitions of guardian ad litem Erik Brewster to approve 

the compromise of the pending action on behalf of minor Plaintiffs Mila Shen, Zoe Shen, 

and Vesper Shen (“minor Plaintiffs”). (Doc. No. 40.) United States Magistrate Judge 

Bernard G. Skomal filed a Report and Recommendation recommending the petitions be 

granted. (Doc. No. 41.) Based on the Court’s review of the moving papers, the law, and 

for the reasons set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation and GRANTS the Petitions.

///

/// 

Case 3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2

3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS

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

II. BACKGROUND

On August 8, 2018, minor Plaintiffs Mila, Zoe, and Vesper Shen, together with 

their parents, Plaintiffs Edwin and Joyce Shen, attended a performance at the Club Med 

Hotel in Tomamu Hokkaido, Japan.1 (Doc. No. 41 at 2.) At the performance, General 

manager Merlin Chelliah gathered the children to the front of the stage to have them 

partake in a sake barrel breaking ceremony. Id. During the ceremony, Ms. Chelliah’s 

wooden mallet slipped out of her hand and hit Mila in the center of her forehead. Id. She 

suffered a nondisplaced frontal skull fracture and today has a prominent scar across her 

forehead. Id. She received emergency treatment, imaging, a neurological examination, 

plastic surgery, and therapy for emotional trauma. Id. Mila was seven years old at the 

time of the injury. Id. Her parents and sisters Zoe and Vesper witnessed Mila’s injury 

causing them emotional distress. Id.

This action was initially filed in California Superior Court but was subsequently 

removed to this Court on February 20, 2019. Id. The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges

claims of negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent 

misrepresentation. Id. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction. Id. Magistrate Judge Skomal held an Early Neutral Evaluation and Case 

Management Conference on September 4, 2019. Id. The case did not settle, and a 

scheduling order was issued. Id. On September 30, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their opposition 

to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Id. On October 18, 2019, the parties filed a joint 

notice of settlement. Id. Thereafter, on November 1, 2019, guardian ad litem Erik 

Brewster filed petitions for approval of the minor's compromise of claims as to Mila, 

Zoe, and Vesper Shen.

2

 Id. On December 19, 2019, Magistrate Judge Skomal issued a 

 

1 Plaintiffs Mila Shen, Zoe Shen, and Vesper Shen are minors appearing by and 

through their court appointed guardian ad litem, Erik Brewster. (Doc. No. 40 at 2.)

2 The individual Petitions for Mila, Zoe, and Vesper Shen were attached to the 

Motion as exhibits. (See Doc. No. 40-1, 2, and 3.) 

Case 3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3

3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS

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

Report and Recommendation recommending the Petitions be granted as to all three minor 

Plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 41.) Since then, the parties filed a Joint Waiver of the Fourteen Day 

Objection Period for Approval of Minors’ Compromise on December 27, 2019. (Doc. 

No. 42.)

III. DISCUSSION

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 courts should “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 coplaintiffs 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.

Considering the Petitions along with the Declarations filed in support of each, the 

Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Skomal’s conclusion that a gross settlement sum of 

Case 3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4

3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS

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

$500,000 is reasonable in light of the facts of this case, the causes of action brought, and 

recoveries received by similarly situated plaintiffs.

Here, the proposed settlement will result in payment (after attorney’s fees and 

costs) of $299,707.18 to Mila, $45,091 to Zoe, and $45,091 to Vesper.

3

 (Doc. No. 41 at 

5.) Upon receipt of payment, the funds will be deposited into separate settlement annuity

accounts set up for each of the minor Plaintiffs.

4

 Id. Under this arrangement, when the 

minor Plaintiff turns eighteen (18) years of age, she will receive one disbursement 

payment a year, for four years, from her individual annuity account.

5

 Id. The Court 

agrees with Magistrate Judge Skomal’s assessment that the proposed methods of 

disbursement are “fair, reasonable, and within the bounds of applicable law” as to each of 

the minor Plaintiffs.6 Id. at 6. 

The Court also finds that the amount deducted from the total recovery for 

attorney’s fees is reasonable. Attorney’s fees and costs are typically controlled by 

statute, local rule, or local custom. Generally, fees in minors’ cases historically have

been limited to twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross recovery. Napier by & through 

Quiroz v. San Diego Cty., No. 3:15-cv-00581-CAB-KSC, 2017 WL 5759803, at *3 (S.D. 

Cal. Nov. 28, 2017. To determine whether the fee is reasonable courts consider a myriad 

of factors including the amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services 

 

3 The minors’ parents are not taking any settlement funds and Plaintiffs’ counsel 

reduced their fee from 33 1/3% to 20% to ensure adequate compensation for Mila. (Doc. 

No. 41 at 5.)

4 The annuities will be purchased through Sage Settlement Consulting using rates 

from Pacific Life Insurance Company.

5 This would provide Mila with guaranteed lump sum payments of approximately 

$92,050.73, $95,992.78, $98,999.17, and $101,834.82 at ages 18 through 21. (Doc. No. 

40-1 at 25). It would also provide Zoe and Vesper each with guaranteed lump sum 

payments of approximately $12,963.06, $13,387.28, $13,904.99, and $14,690.18 at ages 

18 through 21. (Doc. No. 40-1 at 25; Doc. No. 40-2 at 25.)

6 See Cal. Prob. Code § 3602(c)(1) (providing as option that funds be deposited into 

a single-premium deferred annuity).

Case 3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5

3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS

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

performed; the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and skills required; the 

amount involved and the results obtained; and the experience and ability of the attorney. 

Cal. Rule of Ct. 7.955(b). 

Here, minor Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks $100,000 in attorney’s fees, a sum that 

represents twenty percent (20%) of the $500,000 gross settlement.7 (Doc. No. 41 at 7.) 

Counsel has provided no documentation in support of this request. Nonetheless, the 

Court finds that in consideration of the duration of this case, the amount of work 

performed by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the fee request’s adherence to an amount which is 

less than the twenty-five percent (25%) limit historically applied, the amount of 

attorney’s fees sought, in this case, is reasonable and does not suggest that the settlement 

is unfair. 

Next, the Court finds that an award of $8,928.38 to cover litigation costs of the

Plaintiffs’ counsel is also fair and reasonable under the circumstances.8 These include, 

amongst other costs, $2,500 in expert fees, $3,019.45 for translations, and $1,443 in focus 

group costs. (See Doc. No. 40-1 at 21, 40-2 at 21, and 40-3 at 21.) 

Finally, the petition on behalf of Mila sets forth $1,183.82 in medical expenses that 

are to be paid from the proceeds of the settlement. (Doc. No. 41 at 8.) The Court finds 

such payment of medical expenses from settlement proceeds permissible.9

 

7 Minor Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks $76,940 based on Mila’s portion of the settlement 

(Doc. No. 40-1 at 7) and $11,530 each from Zoe and Vesper’s portions of the settlement 

(Doc. No 40-2 at 7, 40-3 at 7.)

8 Minor Plaintiffs’ counsel set for costs accrued over the course of the litigation 

totaling $8,928.38, with $6,869 to come from Mila’s settlement proceeds and $1,029 to 

come from both Zoe and Vesper’s settlement proceeds. (Doc. No. 40-1, 40-2, and 40-3 at 

7.)

9 See Cal. Prob. Code § 3601(a) (“authorizing and directing that reasonable 

expenses, medical or otherwise ... shall be paid from the money or other property to be 

paid or delivered for the benefit of the minor ....”).

Case 3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6

3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS

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

Accordingly, given the nature of the harm, the obstacles to prevailing at trial, and 

the settlement amount received in similar cases, the Court concludes that the settlement 

amount of $500,000 is fair, reasonable, and within the bounds of applicable law.10 As 

such, and given that settlement is in the best interest of the minor Plaintiffs, the Court 

ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS the Petitions to Approve the Minors’ Compromise.

IV. CONCLUSION

Having thoroughly considered the R&R, the terms of the proposed settlement 

agreement, and the Petitions, the Court finds that Mila, Zoe, and Vesper Shen’s interests 

are adequately safeguarded and the proposed settlements are “fair and reasonable.” 

Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1179. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS

the Petitions to Approve the Minors’ Compromise in the pending action. The Court 

further ORDERS:

(1) Defendants shall prepare and deliver the settlement fund proceeds for 

dispersal as follows: 

(a) attorney’s fees in the amount of $76,940, $11,530, and $11,530 (or 

collectively $100,000) to Plaintiffs’ counsel, The McClellan Law Firm; 

(b) costs in the amount of $8,928.38 to Plaintiffs’ counsel, The 

McClellan Law Firm; 

(c) medical expenses in the amount of $1,183.82, paid directly to provider 

Conduent (Cigna Medical Lien) via P.O. Box 30114, Salt Lake City, Utah 

84130; and 

(d) the balance of the settlement shall be distributed to each of the minor 

Plaintiffs as set forth in the Petitions.

(2) The remaining amounts designated for each of the minor Plaintiffs 

($299,707.18 for Mila, $45,091 for Zoe, and $45,091 for Vesper) shall be 

 

10 See Cal. Prob. Code § 3602(c)(1) (providing as option that funds be deposited into 

a single-premium deferred annuity).

Case 3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7

3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS

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

invested into three structured settlement annuities comporting with the 

options selected by the minor Plaintiffs’ guardian ad litem for the benefit of 

the minor Plaintiffs. The funds will be held in the structured annuities until 

the minor Plaintiffs reach the age of eighteen (18) and then be disbursed 

based on the proposals selected by the guardian ad litem. Until that time, no 

withdrawals may be made from the structured annuity without a written 

order from this Court.

(3) All proceeds are to be paid within thirty (30) days after approval of the 

minors’ compromise. Interest shall accrue at 7% per annum on any amounts 

not paid within 30 days of this Order.

(4) Any annuity payments remaining to be paid after the death of Mila Shen will 

be made payable in equal shares to her primary beneficiaries: Zoe Shen, 

Vesper Shen, and Axel Shen. If one of Mila’s primary beneficiaries is no 

longer living, then that person’s payments will be distributed in equal shares 

to the remaining beneficiaries listed here.

(5) Any annuity payments remaining to be paid after the death of Vesper Shen 

will be made payable in equal shares to her primary beneficiaries: Zoe Shen, 

Mila Shen, and Axel Shen. If one of Vesper’s primary beneficiaries is no 

longer living, then that person’s payments will be distributed in equal shares 

to the remaining beneficiaries listed here.

(6) Any annuity payments remaining to be paid after the death of Zoe Shen will 

be made payable in equal shares to her primary beneficiaries: Vesper Shen, 

Mila Shen, and Axel Shen. If one of Zoe’s primary beneficiaries is no 

living, then that person’s payments will be distributed in equal shares to the 

remaining beneficiaries listed here. 

(7) The parties are directed to file a request for dismissal of this action within 

fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.

///

Case 3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8

3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 31, 2019 ______________________________

HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00349-BEN-BGS Document 43 Filed 12/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8