Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 30, 2025

A. v. CITY OF SUNNYVALE

Full caption

A.A., a minor, by and through guardian ad litem, MARIA LOPEZ v. CITY OF SUNNYVALE, et al.

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:24-cv-09312
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Civil RightsSection 1983Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In A.A. v. City of Sunnyvale, Judge DeMarchi approved a $50,000 settlement resolving a minor’s civil-rights and state-law claims.

Who this affects

A.A.; Maria Lopez as his mother and guardian ad litem; the City of Sunnyvale and the other defendants; A.A.’s law office and attorney Gustavo Magana; and Medi-Cal.

What happened

A.A., a minor represented by his mother and guardian ad litem, Maria Lopez, sued the City of Sunnyvale and other defendants after alleging that Sunnyvale police officers used excessive force during his arrest, injuring his eyelid. He brought a federal civil-rights claim and state-law claims for violation of the Bane Act, negligence, and battery.

The parties jointly asked the court to approve their settlement. The City agreed to pay $50,000 without admitting liability, including $1,444.16 directly to Medi-Cal. After attorney fees and litigation costs, A.A. was to receive $28,027.84 when he reached the age of majority, and the parties agreed to dismiss all claims with prejudice.

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi found the settlement fair and reasonable for A.A., approved the parties’ stipulation, authorized the payment and distribution of the funds, and ordered the parties to file a stipulated dismissal by December 5, 2025.

The detailed version

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

Case
A. v. CITY OF SUNNYVALE · No. 5:24-cv-09312
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
Oct. 30, 2025

Background

A.A., a minor proceeding through his mother and guardian ad litem, Maria Lopez, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His claims arose from an April 15, 2024 arrest by Sunnyvale police officers. A.A. alleged that officers used excessive force, causing physical injuries including an eyelid gash that required medical treatment.

The complaint asserted a § 1983 claim alleging violation of A.A.’s Fourth Amendment rights, along with claims under California’s Bane Act, negligence, and battery. The parties reached a settlement and jointly asked the court to approve it.

Settlement Terms

The City of Sunnyvale agreed, on behalf of all defendants and without admitting liability, to pay $50,000. The settlement also included a mutual release of all claims between the parties. Of the total, $1,444.16 was to be paid directly to Medi-Cal for A.A.’s medical treatment.

The remaining $48,555.84 was to be paid to the law office of Gustavo Magana for A.A.’s benefit and deposited into a client trust account. The law office could withdraw a $20,000 contingency fee, described as 40% of the settlement, and $528 for litigation costs. A.A. was to receive the net amount of $28,027.84 on November 21, 2025, after reaching the age of majority. The parties’ agreement provided for dismissal of all claims with prejudice.

Court’s Analysis

Because A.A. was a minor, the court had a special duty under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) to protect his interests. Applying the standard described by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court independently evaluated whether A.A.’s net recovery was fair and reasonable in light of the facts, his specific claims, and recoveries in similar cases.

The court found that the settlement of A.A.’s claims was fair and reasonable. Although courts commonly direct that settlement funds for minors be placed in a blocked account, the court approved use of a client trust account because A.A. would reach the age of majority within a few weeks.

Order

The court granted the parties’ stipulation to approve the settlement. It authorized the $48,555.84 payment to the law office for A.A.’s benefit, the $20,000 fee and $528 cost reimbursement, the $1,444.16 payment to Medi-Cal, and delivery of the $28,027.84 net proceeds to A.A. The parties were ordered to file a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 by December 5, 2025. If they did not, the court ordered them to appear and show why the case should not be dismissed.

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.