Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02511/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02511-3/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

Order on Motion to Approve Settlement 1.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SMITH, a handicapped adult and 

JA.S., a minor; all by and through their 

mother and guardian TERESA SMITH,

 Plaintiffs

 v.

CITY OF STOCKTON; ERIC JONES,

individually and in his capacity as Chief of 

the Stockton Police Department;

HOUSTON SENSABAUGH, individually; 

TRAVIS WEBER, individually; T. REES, 

individually; BENJAMIN RATZLAFF, 

individually; KENNY HOANG MINH 

PHAM, individually; and DOES 1 to 100.

 Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:15-CV-02511-MCE-AC

ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPROVAL

OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS OF 

THE CLAIMS OF DISABLED ADULT 

JAMES SMITH AND MINOR JA.S.

[U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal. Local Rule 202]

Date: May 5, 2016

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

Courtroom: 7

The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Proposed Settlements of the Claims of 

Disabled Adult James Smith and Minor JA.S. came on regularly for hearing at the above noted 

date and time. Plaintiffs were represented by Quinton B. Cutlip, Esq., of the Dolan Law Firm. 

The motion was unopposed. Having considered the papers filed in support and the arguments of 

counsel, the Court finds good cause to issue the following order:

///

BACKGROUND

Case 2:15-cv-02511-MCE-AC Document 16 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 7
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

Order on Motion to Approve Settlement 2.

Plaintiff James Smith is a developmentally delayed adult, who is said to have an IQ of 

approximately 40 and the mental capacity of a four or five year old. He was engaged in horseplay 

with a younger boy when an officer from the Stockton Police Department drove up. It is alleged 

that there were no reasonable grounds for the officer to detain James, but the officer followed him, 

tackled him, and restrained him. It is also alleged that the officer sicced his police dog upon 

James. James was arrested and taken to jail. He was initially charged with violating California 

Penal Code 48(a) – resisting or delaying an officer, but all charges were dropped, apparently 

because of James’ lack of mental capacity.

James suffered two broken teeth and extensive bite marks on his arms, legs, and torso. His 

teeth have been repaired and the bite marks have healed, but scarred. James has also demonstrated 

emotional injuries as a result of the incident that include a deep fear of the Stockton police. 

According to his mother, he runs or flees when he sees members of the Stockton Police 

Department. James’ minor sister JA.S., who has autism, was present while James was being 

arrested and suffered bystander emotional distress. She was neither physically injured nor 

arrested.

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.... 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 Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th 

Cir.2011); E.D. Cal. Local R. 202(b) (“No 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.”).

As the Ninth Circuit explained in Robidoux, 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.” 638 F.3d 1181–82. This determination is made “without regard to the proportion of 

Case 2:15-cv-02511-MCE-AC Document 16 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 7
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

Order on Motion to Approve Settlement 3.

the total settlement value designated for ... plaintiff's counsel ....” Id. at 1182.

ANALYSIS

A. FAIR AND REASONABLE

Plaintiff’s counsel investigated the case, met and interviewed witnesses, tracked the 

criminal prosecution, drafted and served state government tort claims, served a settlement demand, 

and ultimately filed suit in this court. The suit alleged that James Smith had been subjected to an 

unlawful search, seizure, and arrest and had also been subjected to the use of excessive force by 

the Stockton police officers, in their individual capacities. (The City of Stockton was in Chapter 9 

bankruptcy proceedings at the time of the incident.) James Smith’s claims were based upon 

violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and upon various state tort 

claims. The suit also alleged that JA.S. suffered emotional distress as a bystander who witnessed 

her brother being injured. 

The parties agreed to mediate the case with the assistance of the Hon. Raul Ramirez (ret.), 

who was formerly a Judge of this court. The mediation was successful. Pending approval by the 

Stockton City Council and this Court, the parties agreed that the Defendants would pay a total of 

$ 307,500.00 to the Plaintiffs in exchange for a complete waiver of all claims. The settlement is to 

be divided $ 280,000.00 to James Smith, $ 20,000.00 to JA.S., and $ 7,500.00 is to be used to 

defray costs of creating and maintaining a special needs trust for James Smith. The Stockton City 

Council has approved the settlement. Plaintiffs now seek approval from this Court. (Plaintiffs 

also made a separate petition to establish a special needs trust for James Smith, which is being 

addressed in a separate order by this Court.) 

The proceeds of the settlement are to be paid as follows:

///

///

///

///

///

James Smith

Case 2:15-cv-02511-MCE-AC Document 16 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 7
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

Order on Motion to Approve Settlement 4.

Gross Settlement : $ 280,000.00

Less Attorney Fees : [$ 112,000.00]

Less Litigation Costs (93%) : [$ 1,674.73]

Less Medi-Cal Reimbursement : [$ 603.39]

Net to James Smith : $ 165,721.88

Portion of Settlement to Set Up Special Needs Trust: $ 7,500.00

JA.S.

Gross Settlement : $ 20,000.00

Less Attorney Fees (40%) : [$ 8,000.00]

Less Litigation Costs (7%) : [$ 126.06]

Net to JA.S. : $ 11,873.94

After reviewing the facts of the case and Plaintiffs’ specific claims, the Court finds that the 

proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. Under Robidoux, this Court must also consider 

“recovery in similar cases.” Of the three cases Plaintiffs suggested, only Map v. Bakersfield, 

2009 WL 179771 (E.D. Cal. 2009) involved an attack by a police dog. In Map, a police dog 

attacked and bit a 14 year old boy on the head and caused wounds to his face and ear. The 

Plaintiff in Map had $ 12,629.51 in medical expenses and the court approved a settlement of 

$95,000.00 that resulted in a net recovery of $ 56,992.71 to the minor. The second case Plaintiffs

cited (Hagan v. California Forensic Medical Group, 2013 WL 461501 (E.D. Cal. 2013)), is not 

particularly on point, but it demonstrates that settlements in civil rights cases involving minors 

who suffered grave losses can justifiably be approved for relatively small sums. In Hagen, a 

minor’s wrongful death claims for the loss of his incarcerated father were settled for $15,000.00. 

The third case Plaintiffs cited (Baez v. City of New York, 2010 WL 1992537 (E.D. New York 

2010) is more on point. It involved allegations that police violations of a minor’s civil rights 

resulted in physical injuries and a four day incarceration. In Baez, the court approved a $ 15,000 

gross settlement.

///

///

Case 2:15-cv-02511-MCE-AC Document 16 Filed 05/09/16 Page 4 of 7
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

Order on Motion to Approve Settlement 5.

 Although the full extent of the minors’ injuries and the underlying liability issues in Map, 

Baez, and Hagen are not known, these cases support this court’s decision that a gross settlement of 

$280,000.00 (plus $7,500.00 to defray the costs of setting up and administering a special needs 

trust) for James Smith and a gross settlement of $20,000.00 for JA.S. are fair and reasonable. 

James Smith’s $603.39 in medical expenses were less than those required to treat the minor in the 

Map case, yet his net settlement is more than the Map plaintiff recovered. JA.S. did not suffer any 

physical injuries and did not receive any medical care. Yet, she is recovering more than the Baez

plaintiff recovered for his physical injuries and the four days he was incarcerated. James Smith’s 

and JA.S.’ settlements are also more than the Hagen plaintiff recovered for the loss of his father.

This Court hereby finds that the proposed settlements for James Smith and JA.S. are fair 

and reasonable.

B. PRESERVATION OF BENEFITS

Both James Smith and JA.S. receive need-based benefits in the form of Supplemental 

Security Income (“SSI”) and Medi-Cal. The Plaintiffs filed a separate petition to create a special 

needs trust for James Smith. The court’s consideration of that petition is addressed in the order on 

that petition. In this petition, Plaintiffs have requested: 1) to use $7,500.00 of James Smith’s net 

settlement money to help the family move, 2) to be allowed to place $1,750.00 if JA.S.’ net 

settlement into a blocked account until she turns 18, and 3) allow JA.S. to “spend down” her net 

settlement proceeds so that she will still qualify for SSI and Medi-Cal, including spending 

$2,500.00 to help the family move. 

Plaintiffs have submitted a declaration from Kevin Urbatsch, Esq., an attorney who 

specializes in assisting people with disabilities in their estate and settlement planning needs. 

Citing the Social Security Administration’s “Program Operation Manual System,” (POMS) and 

various sections from Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Mr. Urbatsch explains that a 

plaintiff’s net settlement proceeds can be spent down on certain items and services. Based upon 

those representations, the Court finds good cause to allow JA.S.’s net settlement proceeds to be 

used in such a way as to preserve her eligibility for SSI and Medi-Cal benefits.

///

Case 2:15-cv-02511-MCE-AC Document 16 Filed 05/09/16 Page 5 of 7
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

Order on Motion to Approve Settlement 6.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Court finds that the proposed settlement serves the best interests of the 

Plaintiffs. The Petition for Order Approving Compromise of Claims of Plaintiffs 

James Smith and JA.S. (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED.

2. Defendants are to pay the settlement proceeds either: (1) not later than May 10, 

2016; or (2) if it is not possible to issue the proceeds before May 10, 2016, no 

earlier than June 1, 2016, and no later than June 3, 2016. Payment of the 

settlements within the first three days of the month is intended to allow JA.S. time 

to spend-down the money, as set forth below, within the month it is received.

3. $ 7,500.00 of James Smith’s net settlement proceeds may be spent to help defray 

the costs of moving the family out of the neighborhood where they presently reside.

4. The remainder of James Smith’s net settlement proceeds is to be distributed 

according to the Court’s order on the petition to establish a special needs trust.

5. $ 1,750.00 of JA.S.’ net settlement proceeds are to be deposited into a blocked 

account in a federally insured bank or credit union. This money may not be 

withdrawn by anyone, without a court order, or until JA.S. turns 18 years old. 

Once JA.S. turns 18 years old, she will be entitled to withdraw the money.

6. $ 2,500.00 of JA.S.’ net settlement proceeds may be spent to help defray the costs 

of moving the family out of the neighborhood where they presently reside. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:15-cv-02511-MCE-AC Document 16 Filed 05/09/16 Page 6 of 7
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

Order on Motion to Approve Settlement 7.

7. JA.S. is allowed to “spend down” the remainder of her net settlement proceeds, as 

permitted by the Social Security Administration, in order to preserve her eligibility 

for SSI and Medi-Cal benefits. 

8. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 5, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-02511-MCE-AC Document 16 Filed 05/09/16 Page 7 of 7