Ramirez v. City Of Gilroy

Background

This civil-rights case arose from the death of Hector Alvarez. His children, H.A. and L.A., were represented in this motion by their guardian ad litem, Gloria Menchaca. Their mother, Alma Ramirez, was also a plaintiff. The claims included allegations against police officer Adam Moon of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and deprivation of familial relations under the Fourteenth Amendment, both brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs also asserted battery, negligence, and a California Bane Act claim against Officer Moon and the City of Gilroy.

The motion asked the court to approve the settlement of the minors’ claims. The defendants did not oppose the motion. Plaintiffs did not provide the court with the underlying settlement agreement, but represented that all claims would be settled for a total of $1,000,000 paid to the three plaintiffs.

Settlement terms

The settlement was allocated in equal shares: $333,333.33 to H.A., $333,333.33 to L.A., and $333,333.33 to Ms. Ramirez. Under the retainer agreement, counsel would receive 40% of each plaintiff’s share, or $133,333.33 from each share. Counsel also requested reimbursement of $26,707.46 in litigation costs, allocated as $8,902.49 from each plaintiff’s share.

After fees and costs, each plaintiff’s net settlement was $191,097.51. H.A. and L.A. would receive those amounts through structured annuities, with payments when each reached ages 25, 27, and 30. The court stated that the total amount H.A. would receive after the final annuity payment was $280,775, and the total amount L.A. would receive was $272,785. The guardian ad litem reviewed and approved the distribution.

Court’s analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), courts have a special duty to protect minors’ interests. For a proposed settlement involving a minor, the court must independently determine whether the settlement serves the minor’s best interests. The court focused on each minor’s net recovery, considering the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recoveries in similar cases. It did not compare the minors’ recoveries with the amounts allocated to the adult plaintiff or attorneys.

The court found that the proposed net amounts for H.A. and L.A. were comparable to, or greater than, recoveries in similar cases. It also noted that other courts had found structured annuity payments preferable to lump-sum payments in some circumstances. The court found no reason to question the plaintiffs’ choice of structured annuities and did not substitute its judgment for that of the plaintiffs or their counsel.

Disposition

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and granted the unopposed motion for approval of the minors’ compromise. It ordered the parties to file a joint status report by October 16, 2020, stating when they anticipated filing a stipulation for dismissal. The opinion did not itself state that the case was dismissed.