Garedakis v. Brentwood Union School District
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:14-cv-04799
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Garedakis v. Brentwood Union School District, Judge Hamilton approved M.G.’s $115,000 settlement and special-needs trust.
Minor plaintiff M.G., his guardian ad litem, the defendants, the special-needs trust and its trustee, and the law office receiving the authorized trust-paid fee.
What happened
In Garedakis v. Brentwood Union School District, minor plaintiff M.G., through guardian Michael Garedakis, asked the court to approve a settlement with the defendants. M.G. was the case’s sole remaining plaintiff and had settled the remaining state-law claims.
The court reviewed whether the settlement served M.G.’s best interests. It found the $115,000 net recovery fair and reasonable, considering the case, the claims, similar recoveries, and the possibility that a pending state-court appeal could adversely affect the claims. M.G.’s attorneys waived attorney’s fees and litigation costs, while the money was to be placed in a special-needs trust.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted the motion. She approved the settlement and trust, authorized the guardian and trustee to sign necessary documents, directed that $115,000 be held in the trust, waived the trustee’s bond requirement, assigned ongoing trust oversight to a Nevada state court, and authorized $2,000 in trust-paid fees for preparing the trust.
The detailed version
- Garedakis v. Brentwood Union School District · No. 4:14-cv-04799
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Mar. 23, 2020
Background
Minor plaintiff M.G., represented by his guardian ad litem—the person appointed to protect the minor’s interests in the case—asked the court to confirm a settlement. M.G. was the sole remaining plaintiff and had reached a settlement with the defendants concerning his remaining state-law claims. The motion was unopposed.
Legal standard
The court explained that federal courts have a special duty under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) to protect minors who are unrepresented in an action. For settlements involving minors, this requires the court to independently determine whether the settlement serves the minor’s best interests. The court applied the approach used for evaluating minors’ settlement recoveries in federal claims to M.G.’s state-law claims as well.
Court’s analysis
Under the settlement, M.G. would receive a net recovery of $115,000. His guardian ad litem requested that the money be placed in a special-needs trust under 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(A). The motion included a redacted copy of the proposed trust. M.G.’s attorneys agreed to waive their claims for attorney’s fees and reimbursement of litigation costs.
After considering the facts, M.G.’s claims, the settlement terms, recoveries in similar cases, and the possibility of an adverse outcome in a pending state-court appeal that could dispose of the claims, the court found that the settlement was in the parties’ best interests and that M.G.’s recovery was fair and reasonable.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted the motion and ordered the following:
- The settlement was approved on M.G.’s behalf. - The creation and funding of the special-needs trust were approved and directed. - M.G.’s guardian ad litem was authorized and directed to sign documents, including releases, needed to complete the settlement and establish the trust. - The trustee was authorized and directed to sign documents needed to establish the trust and its accounts. - $115,000 was to be allocated to and held in the trust. - The trustee was not required to post a bond or surety. - Ongoing oversight of the trust was assigned to the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada in Clark County, and the trustee was required to handle filings and reports needed for that oversight. - The trustee was authorized to pay $2,000 in attorney’s fees to The Law Offices of Laura E. Stubberud for preparing the trust.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.