Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 4, 2020

Abdullah v. City and County of San Francisco

Judge
Laurel Beeler
Docket
3:19-cv-05526
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureCivil Rights
In one sentence

In Abdullah v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Beeler approved a $150,000 settlement involving minor T.A.’s claims.

Who this affects

Minor plaintiff T.A., her father and fellow plaintiff Rashad Abdullah, and the defendants were affected by the approval and implementation of the settlement.

What happened

Abdullah v. City and County of San Francisco arose from the incarceration of T.A., who was 13 years old. T.A. and her father, Rashad Abdullah, settled the case for $150,000 and asked the court to approve the settlement involving T.A.

The court reviewed whether T.A.’s share was fair and reasonable. It approved a $20,000 custodial account for T.A. and a $65,000 structured annuity, with no attorney’s fees or costs taken from the settlement.

Judge Beeler approved the minor’s compromise and ordered the parties to carry out the settlement terms, including funding the annuity by December 22, 2020.

The detailed version

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

Case
Abdullah v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:19-cv-05526
Judge
Laurel Beeler
Date
Nov. 4, 2020

Background

This civil-rights case arose from the alleged wrongful incarceration of T.A., a 13-year-old minor. T.A. and her father, Rashad Abdullah, settled the case on June 2, 2020, for $150,000 and filed an unopposed motion seeking approval of T.A.’s settlement. All parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.

Court’s review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), courts have a special duty to protect minors who are involved in lawsuits. For a proposed settlement involving a minor’s federal claims, the court reviews whether the amount the minor will actually receive is fair and reasonable in light of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recoveries in similar cases.

The settlement allocated $85,000 to T.A. and $65,000 to another portion of the settlement. T.A.’s $85,000 was to be distributed as follows:

- $20,000 would be placed in a custodial account at a federally insured bank under the California Uniform Transfers to Minors Act. T.A.’s father, Rashad Abdullah, was appointed custodian and could use the funds only for T.A.’s benefit. - The remaining $65,000 would fund a structured settlement annuity. The stated payments were a guaranteed $20,000 lump sum on December 16, 2023; $500 per month for 48 guaranteed payments beginning December 16, 2023; and a guaranteed $25,375.71 lump sum on December 16, 2028.

The plaintiffs’ counsel worked pro bono, so no settlement money was allocated to attorney’s fees or costs.

Ruling

Judge Laurel Beeler found that the settlement provided T.A. a substantial monetary benefit and was reasonable. The court approved the minor’s compromise and ordered the settlement implemented according to its terms. The parties had to complete the necessary documents, and the defendants or their insurer had to fund the structured settlement annuity by December 22, 2020. The recovery was to be paid by check to the assignee on T.A.’s behalf.

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.