Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 7, 2022

Granados v. City of Gilroy Police Department

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:22-cv-01116
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureCivil Rights
In one sentence

In Granados v. City of Gilroy Police Department, Judge Freeman approved a $175,000 settlement involving minor E.C.’s police-dog-bite claims.

Who this affects

Minor E.C., Sierra Granados, the defendants, and the attorneys whose fees and costs were approved. The order requires E.C.’s settlement share to be placed in a deferred annuity.

What happened

Granados v. City of Gilroy Police Department involved federal civil-rights and state-law claims arising from a police canine’s bite. Sierra Granados brought the case individually and as guardian for minor E.C.; the defendant did not oppose approval of the settlement.

The court approved the minor’s settlement claims and the proposed distribution of $175,000: $90,589.95 for E.C., $28,558.35 for Granados, and specified attorneys’ fees and costs for counsel. The court ordered E.C.’s funds to be placed in a deferred annuity, with payments beginning when E.C. reaches adulthood on March 27, 2037.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman found the proposed distribution fair and reasonable and granted the petition approving the minor’s compromise. The order also approved the attorneys’ fees and costs described in the petition.

The detailed version

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

Case
Granados v. City of Gilroy Police Department · No. 5:22-cv-01116
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
Dec. 7, 2022

Background

Sierra Granados, individually and as guardian ad litem for minor E.C., brought the action against the City of Gilroy Police Department. The opinion says the plaintiffs asserted federal civil-rights and state-law claims arising from a bite by a police canine. The action was removed to federal court on February 23, 2022.

Granados filed a petition asking the court to approve a settlement involving the minor. The defendant did not oppose the petition. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), a court must protect a minor’s interests and independently determine whether a proposed settlement is in the minor’s best interests. The court explained that its review focused on whether each minor’s net recovery was fair and reasonable.

Settlement and Distribution

The parties agreed to settle all claims for $175,000. The petition proposed this distribution:

- $90,589.95 to minor E.C.; - $28,558.35 to Granados; and - attorneys’ fees and costs of $34,410,05 for counsel for E.C. and $21,411.65 for counsel for Granados.

The court found the proposed distribution fair and reasonable. It approved the settlement of E.C.’s claims against all defendants under the terms described in the petition and order. It also approved the distribution of attorneys’ fees and costs to plaintiffs’ counsel.

Order

The petition for an order approving the minor’s compromise was granted. The court ordered that E.C.’s $90,589.95 share be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity. When E.C. reaches the age of majority on March 27, 2037, the annuity is to pay $1,500 per month for seven years, followed by a lump-sum payment of the remaining balance.

This was an ancillary settlement-approval order, not a decision on whether the underlying civil-rights or state-law claims were legally valid. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order on December 7, 2022.

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.