Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03928/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03928-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYNNETTE FRARY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF MARIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-03928-MEJ 

ORDER APPROVING COMPROMISE 

OF MINOR’S CLAIM

Re: Dkt. No. 226

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jamie Ball, Guardian ad Litem of A.C. (“the Minor” or “A.C.”), petitions this

Court for an order approving her compromise of her minor daughter‟s claim against the County of 

Marin and its employees (the “County Defendants”) for injuries allegedly sustained by A.C.‟s late 

father, Anthony Carmignani. Dkt. No. 226 (“Petition”). The Court finds this matter suitable for 

disposition without oral argument and VACATES the July 2, 2015 hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

78(b); Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties‟ positions, relevant legal authorities, and 

the record in this case, the Court hereby APPROVES the compromise of the Minor‟s claim 

against the County Defendants for the reasons stated below.

BACKGROUND

A full recitation of the facts of this case pertaining to the County Defendants can be found 

in the Court‟s February 25, 2015 Order on the County Defendants‟ Motion for Summary 

Judgment. See Dkt. No. 192. Plaintiffs also filed suit against the City Defendants, including the 

City of Novato and Novato Police Officers, who have also reached a settlement agreement with 

Plaintiffs. See Dkt. Nos. 190, 191. The Court previously granted Plaintiff Ball‟s earlier Petition

for the compromise of A.C.‟s claims against the City Defendants. Dkt. No. 189.

Case 3:12-cv-03928-MEJ Document 230 Filed 06/16/15 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

On May 6, 2014, the County Defendants who were not granted summary judgment1and 

Plaintiffs attended a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, at 

which time they entered into a settlement of $800,000 for all Plaintiffs. Petition ¶ 7. The County 

Defendants obtained approval by the Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2015. Id. 

On May 28, 2015, Plaintiff Ball filed this motion for the Court to approve a compromise of 

the claim of her minor daughter, proposing to allocate a net recovery of $550,463.95 to A.C. Id. ¶ 

14. The County Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the Petition. Dkt. No. 228. 

The City Defendants have not filed any opposition or objection to Plaintiff Ball‟s Petition. 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

“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). “Rule 17(c) provides, in relevant part, that a district court „must appoint a 

guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person 

who is unrepresented in an action.‟” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). 

“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.‟” Id. (quoting 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”). A district court must 

consider whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable as to each minor plaintiff. Id. at 

1182 “[T]he 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.

 

1

Those Defendants include Robert Doyle, Brian Johnson, Rachel Hammer, Shannon Fetterly, and 

Susan Lesher. 

Case 3:12-cv-03928-MEJ Document 230 Filed 06/16/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

The Robidoux Court, however, expressly limited its holding to a minor‟s federal claims, 

noting that it did “not express a view on the proper approach for a federal court to use when sitting 

in diversity and approving the settlement of a minor‟s state law claims.” Id. at 1179 n.2. 

Nevertheless, district courts have found the Robidoux rule reasonable in the context of state law 

claims and have applied the rule to evaluate the propriety of a settlement of a minor‟s state law 

claims as well. Mitchell v. Riverstone Residential Grp., 2013 WL 1680641, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 

17, 2013) (collecting cases). As this case implicates both federal and state law claims, the Court 

applies the rule in Robidoux to evaluate the settlement of all of the Minor‟s claims in this case. 

See Doe ex rel. Scott v. Gill, 2012 WL 1939612, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012).

B. Application to the Case at Bar

A.C., through her guardian ad litem, has agreed to settle her claims against the County

Defendants in exchange for $600,000.00, which represents 75% of the gross settlement amount.

The other 25% is to be distributed to the other two Plaintiffs: Plaintiff Frary for 15% of the gross 

recovery ($120,000) and to Plaintiff Howard for 10% ($80,000). A.C.‟s gross recovery will then 

be reduced by $49,536.05, which represents 75% of the total amount of case expenses incurred by 

her counsel that totaled $66,048.06. The net recovery for A.C. is thus $550,463.95.

2

 

Upon review of the papers submitted, the Court finds the settlement reasonable and in the 

best interests of A.C. First, none of the other parties opposed this Petition or otherwise objected to 

its contents. Second, Plaintiffs have organized the settlement so that A.C. will receive the 

majority of the settlement proceeds as compared with the other Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 226, Ex. 3. 

Finally, having reviewed A.C.‟s claims against the County Defendants and recoveries in other 

similar cases, the Court finds A.C.‟s net recovery fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

See, e.g., Hagan v. Cal. Forensic Med. Grp., 2013 WL 461501, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013) 

report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 552386 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2013) ($15,000 net 

recovery reasonable for claims relating to the death of the minor‟s father in a § 1983 action); 

 

2

The Petition also discusses the Minor‟s attorneys‟ fees. Her attorneys seek a fee of 33 1/3% of 

the net recovery, which is an amount of $183,487.98. Therefore, the net balance of the proceeds 

paid to A.C. will be at least $366,975.97. 

Case 3:12-cv-03928-MEJ Document 230 Filed 06/16/15 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Armstrong v. Dossey, 2013 WL 4676541, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2013) (finding fair and 

reasonable settlement of minors‟ section 1983 claims for their father‟s death for $11,000

respectively between the minors); Doe ex rel. Scott, 2012 WL 1939612, at *2 (finding settlement 

of minor‟s section 1983 claims for the death of her mother for $7,188 fair and reasonable); see 

also Cotton ex rel. McClure v. City of Eureka, Cal., 2012 WL 6052519, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 

2012) (approving a minor‟s compromise for $4,000,000.00 following defendants‟ notice of appeal 

of jury verdict in favor of the minor plaintiff and her grandfather in a § 1983 action).

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Minor‟s net recovery and the compromise of the 

Minor‟s claim is reasonable under the circumstances.

3

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court APPROVES the compromise of the Minor‟s claim 

against the County Defendants. 

Additionally, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Plaintiff Ball is authorized to execute and convey to the representatives of the County 

of Marin a release form attached to the Petition as Exhibit 5.

(2) In disbursing the settlement funds, Plaintiff Ball will invest at least $300,000.00, less 

an assignment fee of $750, in a single-premium deferred annuity for the benefit of 

A.C., the minor.

(3) The sum of at least $66,975.97 shall be deposited in a federally insured blocked 

account. No withdrawals of principal or interest shall be made from the blocked 

account without a written order under this case name and number, signed by a judge, 

and bearing the seal of this Court, until the minor attains the age of 18 years on April 3, 

2024. When the minor attains the age of 18 years, the depository, without further order 

 

3

The Court does not make a finding as to the reasonableness of Plaintiffs‟ attorneys‟ fees or 

whether the amounts allocated to Plaintiffs Howard and Frary are fair or reasonable. See 

Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182 (“[T]he 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.”).

Case 3:12-cv-03928-MEJ Document 230 Filed 06/16/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

of this Court, is authorized and directed to pay by check or draft directly to the former 

minor, upon proper demand, all moneys including interest deposited under this Order. 

(4) Plaintiff Ball and/or the Minor‟s attorney shall deliver to each depository a copy of this 

order at the time of deposit.

(5) Within 45 days after the receipt of the settlement funds from the County Defendants, 

Plaintiff Ball shall provide proof to the Court that at least $300,000.00 was invested in 

a single-premium deferred annuity and that at least $66,975.97 was deposited into a 

blocked account with a federally insured bank for the benefit of the Minor, and that she 

can access said funds when she reaches the age of 18 years.

(6) Within 60 days after the receipt of the settlement funds from the County Defendants, 

the parties shall file either: (1) a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); or (2) a joint status report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate

Case 3:12-cv-03928-MEJ Document 230 Filed 06/16/15 Page 5 of 5