Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01004/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01004-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMELIN BRAVO, a minor by and through 

her guardian ad litem; BLANCA RIVERA; 

BLANCA RIVERA; and ROGELIO 

BRAVO, individually,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-01004-AWI-JLT

ORDER APPROVING COMPROMISE OF 

CLAIM OF MINOR

(Doc. No. 46)

On May 19, 2016, plaintiffs Emelin Bravo by and through her guardian ad litem Blanca 

Rivera, and Blanca Rivera and Rogelio Bravo, individually, filed the instant petition for approval 

of compromise of claim of minor. (Doc. No. 46.) The government filed a response. (Doc. No. 

48.) Thereafter, at the request of the court, plaintiff filed as an exhibit the written stipulation for 

compromise settlement entered by the parties. (Doc. No. 50.) Finally, on June 20, 2016, 

plaintiffs’ counsel submitted an amended proposed order with exhibits setting forth the 

breakdown of disbursements under the proposed settlement including the final lien calculation.

(Doc. No. 52) The motion was heard on June 21, 2016. Counsel Carl McMahan appeared 

telephonically for plaintiffs and Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Lodge appeared on 

behalf of defendant. (Id.) 

Case 1:14-cv-01004-DAD-JLT Document 54 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 6
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

After reviewing the petition and terms of the written settlement agreement, the court finds 

that the proposed settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. The court therefore will approve

the written settlement agreement and grants the petition for approval of compromise of claim of 

minor.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Emelin Bravo, Blanca Rivera, Rogelio Bravo filed the complaint in this action 

on June 26, 2014. (Doc. No. 1.) The complaint alleges medical malpractice claims under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) 28 U.S.C. § 2671 and alleges damages for medical negligence 

arising from the care and treatment of plaintiff Blanca Rivera during her prenatal, labor and 

delivery of minor plaintiff Emelin Bravo at a federally supported community health center that 

has been deemed a Public Health Service employee for purposes of the FTCA . (Id.) During 

labor and delivery, minor plaintiff Emelin Bravo suffered a right brachial plexus paralysis 

(weakness of her right upper extremity), her mother Blanca Rivera suffered a separation of her 

symphysis pubis, which required surgery to repair, and the father Rogelio Bravo alleges he 

suffered emotional distress. (Id.) The government filed an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint on 

September 30, 2014. (Doc. No. 5.)

On April 29, 2016, this case settled at a settlement conference before the assigned 

magistrate judge. (Doc. Nos. 44 and 45.) 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard for Compromise of Minor’s Claim

As a derivative of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), district courts have a special 

duty to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors. Rule 17(c) provides, in pertinent 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). 

In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, the district court’s 

special duty requires it to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the 

best interests of the minor.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) 

/////

Case 1:14-cv-01004-DAD-JLT Document 54 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 6
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

(quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978) (internal citation marks 

omitted)).

In Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit provided specific guidance “on how to conduct this 

independent inquiry.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181. While the Ninth Circuit noted that district 

courts have typically applied state law and the local rules governing the award of attorney’s fees 

to make the reasonableness and fairness determination, the court held that “this approach places 

an undue emphasis on the amount of attorney’s fees provided for in a settlement, instead of 

focusing on the net recovery of the minor plaintiffs under the proposed agreement.” Id. The 

Ninth Circuit held that, instead, 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.” Id. at 1181–82. Further, the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery should be 

evaluated “without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult coplaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to 

safeguard.” Id. at 1182 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078).

Local Rule 202(b) sets forth 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.” Local Rule 202(b)(2) further provides in pertinent part that an application for 

approval of a settlement of a minor:

shall disclose, among other things, 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 . . .

B. Terms of the Compromise Settlement

A global settlement offer to plaintiffs of $325,000 was accepted, which includes payment 

of attorney’s fees and costs. (Doc. No. 50, at 2–3.) The settlement is inclusive of all claims 

against defendant and is intended to resolve this action in its entirety. (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiffs and 

Case 1:14-cv-01004-DAD-JLT Document 54 Filed 06/22/16 Page 3 of 6
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

their counsel have proposed the following disbursements from the settlement amount: 75% to 

minor Emelin ($243,750) and 25% to the parents Blanca Rivera and Rogelio Bravo, collectively 

for their injuries ($81,250), before fees and costs. (Doc. No. 46, at 4.) Minor Emelin had MediCal lien of $93,489.05 that was negotiated down to $60, 961.77. (Doc. No. 52-2.) Plaintiffs’ 

counsel recorded costs associated with this litigation of $31,827. (Doc. No. 46, at 3.)

The amended proposed order submitted by plaintiffs’ counsel reflects that they are 

seeking an award of attorney’s fees at 25 % ($81,250) of the settlement sum. (Doc. No. 52.) This 

was confirmed at the hearing on the motion. The court agrees that the attorney’s fees here are 

properly capped at 25%. See Brewington v. United States, No. CV-13-07672-DMG (CWx), 2015 

WL 4511296, at *7 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2015) (MICRA applies to medical malpractice cases in 

California brought under the FTCA, but “[a]ttorney’s fees are limited to a maximum of 25% of 

any recovery. 28 U.S.C. § 2678.”)

Thus, after deducting attorney’s fees and costs from the plaintiffs’ settlement sums and 

after deducting the final lien amount from minor Emelin’s share, the net disbursement to minor 

Emelin is $97,980.48 and the net disbursement to the parents Blanca Rivera and Rogelio Bravo is 

$52,980.75. (Doc. No. 52-1.)

The petition sets forth that Emelin is a minor child and is currently three and a half years 

old. (Doc. No. 46, at 4.) Blanca Rivera is the guardian ad litem for Emelin. (Id.) The petition 

presents the facts and circumstances of the case and indicates the manner in which the settlement 

was reached. (Id. at 4–5.) The court must thus determine whether the amounts allocated for the 

minor plaintiff is reasonable and fair.

C. The Reasonableness and Fairness of the Settlement Amount

In Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit directed district courts considering the compromise of a 

minor’s claim to examine the fairness and reasonableness of the net settlement amount in view of 

the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and the recovery in similar cases. Robidoux, 638 

F.3d at 1181–82.

Here, plaintiffs filed this action in the middle of 2014, and the facts of the case have been 

thoroughly investigated and developed over the course of the litigation. The settlement 

Case 1:14-cv-01004-DAD-JLT Document 54 Filed 06/22/16 Page 4 of 6
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

agreement was reached after the conclusion discovery and after defendant had filed a motion for 

summary judgment, but before the court had ruled on that motion. (Doc. Nos. 30, 41, and 44.)

The parties engaged in a successful settlement conference with the assigned magistrate judge. 

(Doc. Nos. 44 and 45.) The settlement conference occurred on April 29, 2016, the case settled, 

and the key terms of that agreement were placed on the record. (Id.) Settling the claims at this 

stage of the litigation allows for certainty of recovery for the minor plaintiff, as opposed to 

uncertainty related to defendant’s dispositive motion or an unfavorable verdict at trial. The 

declaration of attorney Carl McMahan establishes that there is a Medi-Cal lien originally totaling 

$92,722.30 associated with services and care provided to the minor Emelin. (Doc. No. 46, at 7.) 

Plaintiffs’ counsel negotiated this lien for the minor’s benefit down to $60,961.77. (Doc. No. 

52-2.) After reviewing the facts of this case, the court finds the settlement amount allocated to 

the minor, Emelin, to be fair and reasonable, and the proportions allocated adequately reflect the 

nature of each plaintiffs’ claims.

After deduction of the final Medi-Cal lien, the net recovery to the minor Emelin 

($97,980.48) shall be placed into a blocked account at a federally insured financial institution for 

her benefit, to be disbursed when she reaches the age eighteen. No withdrawals of principal or 

interest may 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 respective minor attains the 

age of eighteen years. See Local Rule 202(f). When the minor attains the age of eighteen years, 

the depository, without further order of this court, is authorized and directed to pay by check or 

draft directly to the former minor plaintiff, Emelin, upon proper demand, all monies including 

interest deposited under this order. The money on deposit is not subject to escheat. Plaintiffs’ 

attorney and the guardian ad litem shall deliver to the depository a copy of this order at the time 

of deposit.

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

1) The written settlement agreement (Doc. No. 50) is approved as fair and reasonable;

2) The court grants the petition for approval of compromise of claim of minor (Doc. No. 

Case 1:14-cv-01004-DAD-JLT Document 54 Filed 06/22/16 Page 5 of 6
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

46);

3) The settlement amount of $325,000 shall be apportioned 75% to minor Emelin Bravo 

($243,750) and 25% to Blanca Rivera and Rogelio Bravo, collectively ($81,250), 

before fees and costs;

4) Attorney’s fees are capped at 25% ($81,250), as agreed upon by the parties in the 

written settlement agreement, and are granted in that amount by the court;

5) Costs advanced of $31,827 are granted;

6) After deduction of the final Medi-Cal lien, minor Emelin Bravo’s net recovery

($97,980.48) shall be deposited into a blocked account at a federally insured bank or 

credit union;

7) Proof of deposit shall be provided to the court;

8) The settlement proceeds shall be transferred to minor Emelin Bravo’s custody when 

she reaches the age of eighteen;

9) Plaintiffs’ attorney and the guardian ad litem shall deliver to the depository a copy of 

this order at the time of deposit;

10) No withdrawals of principal or interest may be made from the blocked accounts 

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

bearing the seal of this court, until the respective minor attains the age of eighteen

years. When the minor plaintiff attains the age of eighteen years, the respective 

depository, without further order of this court, is authorized and directed to pay by 

check or draft directly to the former minor plaintiff, upon proper demand, all monies

including interest deposited under this order. The money on deposit is not subject to 

escheat; and

11) The parties’ final dismissal documents shall be filed with the court within thirty days 

of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01004-DAD-JLT Document 54 Filed 06/22/16 Page 6 of 6