Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04799/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04799-29/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL GAREDAKIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BRENTWOOD UNION SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04799-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

SETTLEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 352

Before the court is plaintiff M.G., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem 

Michael Garedakis’ motion for order confirming settlement. Dkt. 352. The matter is fully 

briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Having read plaintiff’s 

unopposed motion, and carefully considered plaintiff’s arguments and the relevant legal 

authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for the 

following reasons.

BACKGROUND

A full recitation of the facts can be found in the court’s April 29, 2016 order 

regarding defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 218. As relevant here, plaintiff 

M.G. is the sole remaining plaintiff in this case and has reached a settlement with 

defendants on plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. 

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, 

Case 4:14-cv-04799-PJH Document 354 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 4
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

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)).

In cases involving approval of a settlement related to a minor’s federal claims, 

courts “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 adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs' counsel—whose interests 

the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 1181–82 (citing Dacanay, 573 

F.2d at 1078).

Robidoux limited its holding to federal claims. 638 F.3d at 1179 n.2. However, 

district courts have applied Robidoux’s holding to a minor plaintiff’s settlement of state 

law claims. See, e.g., Frary v. Cty. of Marin, No. 12-CV-03928-MEJ, 2015 WL 3776402, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2015) (citing Mitchell v. Riverstone Residential Grp., No. Civ. S–

11–2202 LKK, 2013 WL 1680641, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2013)). Accordingly, the court 

applies Robidoux’s reasoning to plaintiff’s state law claims.

B. Analysis

Under the terms of the settlement, plaintiff M.G. will receive a net recovery of 

$115,000, which plaintiff’s guardian ad litem requests be placed into a Special Needs 

Trust (the “Trust”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(A). Plaintiff has attached a redacted 

copy of the trust as Exhibit 1 to the motion. Plaintiff’s attorneys have agreed to waive

their claim for attorney’s fees or for reimbursement of litigation costs. The parties have 

agreed to attorney’s fees to the attorney responsible for preparation of the Trust.

Case 4:14-cv-04799-PJH Document 354 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 4
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

Upon consideration of the facts of the case, plaintiff’s claims and the potential for 

an adverse outcome in a pending state court appeal that may be dispositive of plaintiff’s 

claims,

1

the terms of the settlement, and recoveries in similar cases, the court finds the 

settlement to be in the best interest of all of the parties and the amount of money that 

plaintiff will receive to be fair and reasonable.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion and orders the 

following:

1. The court approves the settlement on behalf of the minor plaintiff M.G. as 

set forth in plaintiff’s motion.

2. The court approves and directs the creation and funding of the special 

needs trust for minor plaintiff M.G., as described in Exhibit 1 to the motion.

3. The court authorizes and directs plaintiff M.G.’s guardian ad litem to 

execute any necessary documents, including releases, on behalf of M.G. to 

finalize the settlement and trust.

4. The court authorizes and directs the Trustee to execute any document 

necessary to establish the Trust and to establish accounts on behalf of the 

Trust.

5. The court directs the sum of $115,000.00 shall be allocated to and held 

within the Special Needs Trust.

6. The court orders that the Trustee of the Trust shall not be required to post 

bond or surety in this or any other jurisdiction.

7. The court orders that venue for ongoing oversight of the Trust shall lie with 

the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for Clark 

County and that the Trustee of the Trust is obligated to handle all necessary 

1 The parties agree that a pending California Court of Appeal’s decision on remand from 

the California Supreme Court, (see Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified Sch. Dist. v. S.C., 

444 P.3d 665 (Cal. 2019), may be dispositive of plaintiff’s claims.

Case 4:14-cv-04799-PJH Document 354 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 4
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

future filings and reporting necessary for oversight of the Trust by the 

Eighth Judicial District Court.

8. The court orders that attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,000.00 shall be 

paid by the Trustee of the Special Needs Trust to The Law Offices of Laura 

E. Stubberud for preparation of the Trust for plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2020

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-04799-PJH Document 354 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 4