Williams v. County Of Monterey
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-01811
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Williams v. County Of Monterey, Judge Freeman approved a $40,000 settlement involving minors L.S. and Q.S., with their funds placed in blocked accounts.
Monia Williams, minors L.S. and Q.S., plaintiffs’ counsel, and defendants Josefina Duran and Marcos Estrada.
What happened
In Williams v. County Of Monterey, Monia Williams sued the County of Monterey, the City of Salinas, and individual defendants after L.S. and Q.S. were removed from her care. Josefina Duran and Marcos Estrada agreed to settle the claims against them for $40,000.
The court had previously found the proposed distribution fair and reasonable for the children but denied approval because counsel would retain the children’s money for future litigation costs. The renewed petition kept the proposed distribution but required that each child’s $6,000 share be placed in a blocked savings account.
Judge Freeman granted the renewed petition, approved the settlement and the proposed attorneys’ fees and costs, and ordered counsel to deposit $6,000 for each child into a blocked account and notify the court after making the deposits.
The detailed version
- Williams v. County Of Monterey · No. 5:19-cv-01811
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 16, 2020
Background
Monia Williams brought the action individually and as guardian ad litem for her minor children, L.S. and Q.S., against the County of Monterey, the City of Salinas, and several individuals. The opinion states that the action followed the removal of L.S. and Q.S. from Williams’s care.
Josefina Duran and Marcos Estrada agreed to settle the claims against them for $40,000. Plaintiffs first asked the court to approve the minors’ compromise, proposing payments of $6,000 each to L.S. and Q.S., $6,272.27 to Williams, $9,451.47 to counsel for costs, and $12,274.26 to counsel for attorneys’ fees. The court found the proposed distribution fair and reasonable for the minor plaintiffs under the standard described in Robidoux v. Rosengren, but denied the petition because counsel would retain the minors’ settlement proceeds to cover future litigation costs. The court noted that the parties had not identified a case approving that arrangement.
Renewed Petition
The renewed petition proposed the same overall distribution, with one modification: all of L.S.’s $6,000 recovery and all of Q.S.’s $6,000 recovery would be deposited into blocked savings accounts for their respective benefits. The opinion notes a discrepancy concerning Williams’s recovery: the original petition listed $6,272.27, while the renewed petition listed $6,274.27. The opinion also states that Williams agreed that counsel could retain all but $3,000 of her settlement proceeds to offset future litigation costs.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the renewed Ex Parte Petition for Approval of Minors’ Compromise. The court approved the settlement of L.S.’s and Q.S.’s claims against Duran and Estrada under the parties’ settlement terms, ordered counsel to deposit $6,000 for each minor into a blocked savings account, and required counsel to notify the court when the deposits were completed. The court also approved the distribution of attorneys’ fees and costs to plaintiffs’ counsel as described in the renewed petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.