Amy v. Curtis

Background

The plaintiffs brought claims for civil remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The opinion states that each plaintiff was a victim of child sex-abuse image crimes and that Randall Steven Curtis was convicted after pleading guilty to possessing child sex-abuse images.

The motion sought approval of settlements for six plaintiffs: Skylar, Savannah, Sally, Sierra, Violet, and Pia. Skylar, Savannah, Sally, Violet, and Pia were minors. Sierra had reached adulthood but remained subject to conservatorship proceedings in her home state, which by statute continued until age 21; the opinion states that she had not yet reached that age. Mya and Tori had been minors when the complaint was filed but had since reached adulthood.

Blocked accounts had previously been established for each minor and for Sierra. The opinion states that settlement funds for all of those plaintiffs except Pia would be placed in blocked accounts monitored by their home-state courts. Pia’s blocked account was in Seattle, Washington, where her legal counsel was located. Withdrawals required a court order. Counsel proposed filing, within 45 days after receiving approved funds, a declaration verifying that the funds had been deposited into the blocked accounts and asked that any bond be waived.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) gives district courts a special duty to protect minors and unrepresented people who cannot protect their own interests. For settlements involving minor plaintiffs and federal claims, the court said its review was limited to whether each minor’s net recovery was fair and reasonable in light of the facts, the minor’s particular claim, and recoveries in similar cases. The court evaluated each minor’s recovery separately rather than comparing it with the amounts designated for adult plaintiffs or attorneys.

Under the settlement terms described in the opinion, Curtis was to pay a specified total for the benefit of all plaintiffs on or before October 5, 2021, into the plaintiffs’ counsel’s trust account. The money was to remain there if the minor-settlement process was not complete by that date. The plaintiffs had agreed among themselves to share the resolution proceeds and litigation costs equally. Each plaintiff would receive a share of the total payment after attorney fees and costs. No subrogated expenses were to be paid from the settlement, and the attorneys had advanced the litigation costs.

The opinion also describes contingent-fee agreements involving the parents of the minor plaintiffs, Violet’s settlement guardian ad litem, and attorneys Hepburn and Bianco. Attorney Hepburn had represented several of the plaintiffs, and Hepburn and Bianco had represented Pia. Attorney Kawai served as local counsel, with an agreement that his fees would be part of the contingent fee and would not increase the plaintiffs’ total fee.

The court stated that the motion was unopposed, decided it without oral argument, and granted it.

Disposition

The court approved the minors’ compromise and ordered that the settlement be implemented according to its terms and the order’s description. It ordered all parties to complete necessary documents and required all funds to be distributed consistently with the settlement terms and the order. The defendant was ordered to pay the recovery into the plaintiffs’ counsel’s trust account on or before October 5, 2021.