Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00708/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00708-8/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

3:11cv0708GPC(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

MARK MANN; MELISSA MANN; 

N.G.P.M., a minor; M.N.A.M. a minor; 

M.C.G.M. a minor; and N.E.H.M. a 

minor by and through their Guardian 

Ad Litem, BRUCE PAUL

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11CV0708 GPC (BGS)

ORDER FOR MINORS’ INTEREST IN 

SETTLEMENT OF ACTION

[ECF No. 370]

Judge : Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel

Magistrate: Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

On January 28, 2020, the parties filed a Petition for Approval of Minor’s 

Interest in Settlement of Action (the “Petition”). ECF No. 370. On February 10, 

2020, Defendant County of San Diego filed a response indicating their nonopposition to the Petition. ECF No. 373. On February 25, 2020, the magistrate 

filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) approving the settlement as to the 

Case 3:11-cv-00708-GPC-BGS Document 376 Filed 02/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:11cv0708GPC(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

payments to each of the four minor children. ECF No. 374. On February 25, 2020, 

Defendant filed a response to the R&R indicating that it had no objections. 

BACKGROUND

This lawsuit 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 Petitioner, as guardian 

ad litem on behalf of the minor Plaintiffs, alleged that the minor Plaintiffs were 

taken to a County shelter care facility and subjected to medical examinations 

without the presence, notice, or consent of their parents. Id. Petitioner does not 

represent that any minor required medical treatment as a result, nor did they seek 

special damages for psychological treatment. Id. at 2-3.

On September 26, 2016, the Court approves the parties’ settlement as to some

claims. ECF No. 309. On Decembr 12, 2019, the parties reached a settlement on 

the remaining claims. ECF No. 370 at 5. 

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”).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00708-GPC-BGS Document 376 Filed 02/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:11cv0708GPC(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

A. Gross Settlement

In considering the fairness of a minor’s state law settlement, “federal courts 

generally require that claims by minors . . . be settled in accordance with applicable 

state law.” See O'Connell & Stevenson, California Practice Guide: Federal Civil 

Procedure Before Trial ¶ 15:138 (Cal. & 9th Cir. Eds. 2017). In addition, the Ninth 

Circuit’s decision in Robidoux set forth guidelines for determining the 

reasonableness of a minor’s settlement of federal claims. 638 F.3d at 1181-82. The 

Robidoux court, which limited its holding to federal law settlements, held that 

district courts are to “limit the scope of their review” of settlements involving minor 

plaintiffs “to the question of whether the net amount distributed to each minor 

plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, [1] in light of the facts of the case, 

[2] the minor’s specific claim, and [3] recovery in similar cases.” 638 F.3d at 1179, 

1181-82 (brackets added). 

Plaintiffs’ unopposed Petition 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. 37 at 10. Having considered the Petition, the 

R&R, and all supporting papers and evidence and good cause appearing, the Court 

APPROVES and GRANTS the Petition (ECF No. 370) with respect to the payments 

to each minor plaintiff in accordance with the following:

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.

B. Attorney’s Fees

In California, courts are required to approve the attorneys' fees to be paid for 

representation of a minor. See CAL. PROB. CODE § 2601. Attorney’s fees and 

costs are typically controlled by statute, local rule, or local custom. Generally, fees 

Case 3:11-cv-00708-GPC-BGS Document 376 Filed 02/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:11cv0708GPC(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

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-cv00581-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 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, Petitioner and Plaintiffs’ counsel seek $900,000.00 in attorney’s fees, a 

sum that represents fifty percent (50%) of the $1,800,000.00 gross settlement. ECF 

No. 370 at 8. The Plaintiffs’ attorneys incurred $13,025.34 in costs. Plaintiffs’

attorneys advanced all of these costs. Plaintiffs and their attorneys have agreed that 

the fees will be deducted from the total gross settlement, with the allocated costs to 

tbe paid by Plaintiffs from the portion of the remainder. Under this agreement, the 

net settlement is a total of $886,974.66. 

In consideration of the duration of this case, the amount of work performed 

by Plaintiffs' counsel, the results obtained, and the complexity of the issues, the 

amount of attorney’s fees sought in this case is fair and reasonable.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, given the nature of the harm, the costs of trial, and the 

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

is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the Minor Plaintiffs. As a result, the 

Court ADOPTS the R&R, GRANTS the Petition to Approve the Minors' 

Compromise, and ORDERS

1. $200,000 of the settlement reached with the County of San Diego will be 

used to fund annuities for the benefit of the Minor Plaintiffs. Said amount 

will be made payable to Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc. to fund 

Case 3:11-cv-00708-GPC-BGS Document 376 Filed 02/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:11cv0708GPC(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

future periodic payments as outlined below, holding a total value of 

$281,523.91:

a. N.G.P.M. (Payee): $50,000 made payable to Pacific Life & 

Annuity Services, Inc. to fund future periodic payments to 

N.G.P.M. as outlined in Exhibit 1. The total payout to N.G.P.M.

pursuant to the terms of the annuity is $65,946.28.

b. M.N.A.M (Payee): $50,000 made payable to Pacific Life & 

Annuity Services, Inc. to fund future periodic payments to 

M.N.A.M. as outlined in Exhibit 2. The total payout to M.N.A.M.

pursuant to the terms of the annuity is $71,859.21.

c. M.C.G.M. (Payee): $50,000 made payable to Pacific Life & 

Annuity Services, Inc. to fund future periodic payments to 

M.C.G.M. as outlined in Exhibit 3. The total payout to M.C.G.M.

pursuant to the terms of the annuity is $71,859.21.

d. N.E.H.M.(Payee): $50,000 made payable to Pacific Life & 

Annuity Services, Inc. to fund future periodic payments to 

N.E.H.M. as outlined in Exhibit 4. The total payout to N.E.H.M.

pursuant to the terms of the annuity is $71,859.21.

2. Defendant’s obligation to make the periodic payments described herein 

shall be assigned to Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc. through a 

Qualified Assignment and funded by an annuity contract issued by Pacific 

Life Insurance Company, rated A+XV by A.M. Best Co. To fund the 

periodic payments, Defendant will issue a check in the amount of 

$200,000.00 payable to Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc. and execute

the Qualified Assignment and Release.

3. Said monies distributed to Plaintiffs N.G.P.M., a minor; M.N.A.M. a 

minor; M.C.G.M. a minor; and N.E.H.M. represented by their guardian ad 

litem, Bruce Paul, are not to be withdrawn until disbursed in accordance 

Case 3:11-cv-00708-GPC-BGS Document 376 Filed 02/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:11cv0708GPC(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

with the payment schedule set forth as Exhibits 1-4 to the Petition (ECF 

No. 370) filed in this matter.

4. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, said monies distributed to 

Plaintiffs N.G.P.M., a minor; M.N.A.M. a minor; M.C.G.M. a minor; and 

N.E.H.M. represented by their guardian ad litem, Bruce Paul, are not to 

be used for the minors’ necessities of life while they are minors.

5. The balance of the settlement funds from the settlement with the County 

of San Diego will be disbursed as follows:

a. $900,000.00 in attorneys’ fees, made payable to “The Law Office of 

Donnie R. Cox.”

b. $13,025.34 in costs, made payable to “The Law Office of Donnie R. 

Cox.”

c. The balance of $886,974.66, made payable to “The Law Office of 

Donnie R. Cox, Mark Mann and Melissa Mann.”

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

Dated: February 26, 2020

Case 3:11-cv-00708-GPC-BGS Document 376 Filed 02/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6