Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 25, 2022

Williams v. County Of Monterey

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:19-cv-01811
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureFamily
In one sentence

In Williams v. County of Monterey, Judge Freeman approved a $1.2 million settlement resolving minors L.S.’s and Q.S.’s claims.

Who this affects

Monia Williams, minors L.S. and Q.S., the defendants, and plaintiffs’ counsel; the order approved the children’s settlement claims and the specified distribution of settlement funds, fees, and costs.

What happened

In Williams v. County of Monterey, Monia Williams sued the County of Monterey, the City of Salinas, and several individuals after L.S. and Q.S. were removed from her care.

The defendants agreed to settle all claims for $1.2 million. The proposed distribution included payments to Williams and the two children, along with attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman found the distribution fair and reasonable for the children, granted the petition, approved the settlement and the fees and costs, and imposed a condition concerning the interest rate used to fund the children’s periodic payments.

The detailed version

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

Case
Williams v. County Of Monterey · No. 5:19-cv-01811
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
Mar. 25, 2022

Background

Monia Williams brought the action individually and as guardian for her minor children, L.S. and Q.S. The action named the County of Monterey, the City of Salinas, and several individuals as defendants. The opinion states that the action followed the removal of L.S. and Q.S. from Williams’s care.

The defendants agreed to settle all claims with Williams for $1,200,000. The plaintiffs filed a renewed petition asking the court to approve the settlement of the children’s claims. Court approval was required because the settlement involved minors.

Proposed Distribution

The petition proposed allocating $110,000 to plaintiffs’ counsel for reimbursement of costs, applied proportionally to the plaintiffs’ recoveries, and $600,000 to counsel as the agreed 50% contingency fee. It proposed paying $245,000 to Williams, $122,500 to L.S., and $122,500 to Q.S., after the specified cost reimbursements.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman determined that the proposed distribution was fair and reasonable to L.S. and Q.S. The court granted the petition, approved the settlement of the children’s claims against all defendants under the parties’ settlement terms, and approved the attorneys’ fees and costs described in the petition.

The court did not require an amended petition, provided that the interest rate used to calculate the children’s periodic payments would not decrease by more than five percent before the annuity funding those payments was funded under the settlement agreement and release.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.