IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ABIGAIL GARCIA, on behalf )

of herself and her two minor )

children J.G. and A.G., )

MARILY GARCIA, JESUS RIOS, )

and GILBERTO GARCIA, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) NO. 2:16-cv-321

)

THE CITY OF EAST CHICAGO )

COMMON COUNCIL d/b/a EAST )

CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

et al., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Approve

Settlement, filed by Plaintiff, Abigail Garcia, on behalf of

herself and her two minor children J.G. and A.G., Marily Garcia,

Jesus Rios, Gilberto Garcia (“Plaintiffs”) and The City of East

Chicago Common Council d/b/a East Chicago Police Department, Mark

J. Becker, as Chief of Police, East Chicago Police Department,

Detective Kevin Harretos, Sergeant Jose Rivera, Sergeant George

Coffey and Sergeant Nathaniel London (“Defendants”), on January 2,

2018 (DE #57). Upon due consideration, the motion (DE #57) is

GRANTED and the settlement is APPROVED.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, Abigail Garcia, on behalf of herself and her two

minor children J.G. and A.G., Marily Garcia, Jesus Rios, and

Gilberto Garcia, filed a second amended complaint in this case on

April 12, 2017 (DE #38). Plaintiffs filed suit against the City of

East Chicago, its police chief, and named defendant officers based

upon their using explosives and firearms to enter and violently

search Plaintiff’s home in East Chicago, IN, at 5:00 in the morning

while they were still sleeping. (DE #38.) The second amended

complaint alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I),

unreasonable search and seizure (Count II), unreasonable search and

seizure with false arrest pursuant to section 1983 (Count III),

failure to implement appropriate police department policies and

procedures (Count IV), battery and assault (Count V), and

intentional destruction of property (Count VI). Plaintiffs alleged

that the “violent assault” caused “non-physical injuries to the

minors J.G. and A.G.” (DE #38 ¶ 26.) 

On January 2, 2018, all parties filed the instant joint motion

to approve the settlement. (DE #57.) The parties state they were

able to settle the matter for $15,000. (Id. at 2.) The parties

also stipulate that in the police raid, “the minor plaintiffs were

not physically touched by any of the Defendants and did not suffer

any physical or mental injuries as a result of the incident. Thus,

none of the funds from the settlement will be allocated to the

2
minor plaintiffs.” (Id. at 2.) 

DISCUSSION

Indiana Code 29-3-9-7 provides as follows:

(a) Whenever it is proposed to compromise any claim

by or against a protected person or the protected

person’s property, the court, on petition of the

guardian, may enter an order authorizing the compromise

to be made if satisfied that the compromise will be in

the best interest of the protected person.

(b) Whenever a minor has a disputed claim against

another person, whether arising in contract, tort, or

otherwise, and a guardian for the minor and the minor’s

property has not been appointed, the parents of the minor

may compromise the claim. However, before the compromise

is valid, it must be approved by the court upon filing of

a petition requesting the court’s approval. If the court

approves the compromise, it may direct that the

settlement be paid in accordance with IC 29-3-3-1. If IC

29-3-3-1 is not applicable, the court shall require that

a guardian be appointed and that the settlement be

delivered to the guardian upon the terms that the court

directs. 

Ind. Code 29-3-9-7 (emphasis added). In this case, no guardian has

been appointed1, thus section (a) is not applicable, and the court

need not determine that the compromise is made in the best interest

of the protected person. Rather, section (b) is applicable. 

Section (b) dictates that the parents of the minor may compromise

the claim, but first it must be approved by the court upon filing

1 This comports with Indiana Code section 29-3-3-1 which

provides that “[a]ny person indebted to a minor . . . in an

amount not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) may pay the

debt without the appointment of a guardian . . . directly to any

person having the care and custody of the minor with whom the

minor resides.” Ind. Code 29-3-3-1. 

3
of a petition requesting the court’s approval. 

Because the parties have agreed and stipulated that the minor

plaintiffs did not receive physical or mental injuries as a result

of the incident, and because they are jointly requesting this Court

approve the settlement, this Court approves the compromise of the

minors’ claims and approves the settlement. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Motion to

Approve Settlement (DE #57), APPROVES the compromise of the minors’

claims, and APPROVES the settlement. 

DATED: January 16, 2018 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

4