Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 20, 2024

Ramirez Fonua v. City of Hayward

Judge
Richard Seeborg
Docket
3:21-cv-03644
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureCivil Rights
In one sentence

In Ramirez Fonua v. Martinez, Judge Seeborg approved revised settlements for B.H.R. and B.E.R. and granted the motion sealing their identifying information.

Who this affects

Minor plaintiffs B.H.R. and B.E.R., their guardian ad litem Kendra Garcia, the other plaintiffs and defendants involved in the settlement, and the parties responsible for funding and administering the minors’ structured settlements.

What happened

Cristina Ramirez Fonua and other plaintiffs alleged constitutional and California-law claims related to Stony Ramirez’s shooting death. They asked the court to approve settlements for minor plaintiffs B.H.R. and B.E.R.

The court found the settlements fair and reasonable. Each minor will receive $290,050.17 after fees and costs, with some funds placed in blocked accounts and the remainder used for structured annuities and later payments.

In Cristina Ramirez Fonua, et al. v. Kyle Martinez, et al., Judge Richard Seeborg granted the revised motions approving the minors’ settlements and granted the motion sealing their full names and birth dates. The court also approved the attorney fees and costs described in the motions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ramirez Fonua v. City of Hayward · No. 3:21-cv-03644
Judge
Richard Seeborg
Date
Aug. 20, 2024

Background

The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and California statutory and common law arising from the shooting death of Stony Ramirez. The revised motions asked the court to approve settlements on behalf of minor plaintiffs B.H.R. and B.E.R. The plaintiffs also asked to seal the minors’ full names and birth dates. The original motions were to be terminated as moot because the revised motions replaced them.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), district courts must protect the interests of minor litigants. For a settlement involving a minor, the court must determine whether the settlement serves the minor’s best interests. The court examined whether each minor’s net recovery was fair and reasonable, considering the facts, the minors’ claims, and recoveries in similar cases.

Settlement terms

The gross settlement was $875,000.00. Each minor was entitled to 45% of that amount, or $393,750.00. After deducting 25% attorney fees of $98,437.50 and 45% of the total litigation costs, or $5,262.33, each minor’s net recovery was $290,050.17.

For each minor, $9,348.23 was to be placed in a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation-insured, court-blocked account. B.E.R.’s funds were to be distributed by court order, with the balance distributed on their eighteenth birthday in 2035. B.H.R.’s funds were to be distributed to guardian ad litem Kendra Garcia in annual $500 installments beginning in 2026, for B.H.R.’s sole benefit, with the balance distributed on their eighteenth birthday in 2030.

The remaining $280,701.94 for each minor was to fund a tax-free structured settlement annuity. For B.H.R., Pacific Life Insurance Company was to pay $2,500 monthly beginning on their eighteenth birthday in 2030 for 12 guaranteed years, plus lump-sum payments of $25,000 in 2034, $50,000 in 2037, and $74,308.43 in 2042. For B.E.R., United of Omaha Life Insurance Company was to pay $3,000 monthly beginning on their eighteenth birthday in 2035 for 12 guaranteed years, plus lump-sum payments of $30,000 in 2039, $60,000 in 2042, and $151,267.84 in 2047.

Ruling

Judge Richard Seeborg granted the revised motions for a minor’s compromise for B.H.R. and B.E.R. and granted the sealing motion. The court approved the settlement, attorney fees, and costs as described in the motions. It ordered that no part of either structured settlement annuity be paid to the petitioner and that receipts showing the purchase of each annuity be filed within 60 days. This order approved the settlements and did not decide the underlying constitutional or California-law claims on their merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.