1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 THE ESTATE OF ELISA SERNA, et al., Case No. 20-cv-2096-BAS-DDL

13 Plaintiffs,

ORDER:

14 v. 1. APPROVING MINOR’S

COMPROMISE AND FINAL

15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., SETTLEMENT (ECF Nos. 509, 16 Defendants. 513) 2. GRANTING MOTIONS TO 17 SEAL (ECF Nos. 508, 512) 18 19 Pending before the Court are the parties’ Joint Petition for Order Approving 20 Settlement Involving a Minor and Distribution of Settlement Funds (ECF No. 509), and 21 two Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 508, 512). Having reviewed the motions and supporting 22 documents, and for the reasons discussed below, the motions are GRANTED, and the 23 minor’s compromise is hereby APPROVED. 24 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 25 Elisa Serna was admitted to the Las Colinas Detention Facility on November 6, 26 2019. Plaintiffs allege that Elisa Serna did not receive proper medical care during her 27 incarceration and died as a result. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations. S.R.S. is Elisa 28 Serna’s biological child. S.R.S. was three years old when Elisa Serna died and is now eight 1 years old—a minor. S.R.S. proceeded in this action through her guardian, Paloma Serna, 2 who is Elisa Serna’s biological mother and is S.R.S.’s biological grandmother. Plaintiffs 3 filed this case on February 2, 2021, and since then have withstood motions to dismiss, 4 discovery disputes, and motions for final judgment. 5 After years of litigation, the parties have reached a settlement totaling $15 million. 6 Of the $15 million, the County will pay $14 million and Coast Correctional Medical Group 7 will pay $1 million. The plaintiffs have agreed to the following apportionment of the 8 settlement funds: 9 The Estate of Elisa Serna: 10 S.R.S.: 11 Paloma Serna: 12 Michael Serna: 13 The Estate of Elisa Serna has two beneficiaries: Brandon Honeycutt and S.R.S. 14 Honeycutt and S.R.S. are expected to take equal shares of the Estate’s allotment, pending 15 the approval of the probate court. S.R.S. will not have access to her funds until she is 16 eighteen years old. The awards to Michael and Paloma Serna, the adoptive parents of 17 S.R.S., are intended to ensure the family will be able to provide for S.R.S. until she reaches 18 the age of majority. The structure of this settlement will ultimately guarantee S.R.S. a 19 certain period annuity. 20 This structured settlement was reviewed and secured with a structured settlement 21 specialist at Ringler and Associates in San Diego: Manny Valdez. Further, S.R.S.’s 22 guardian, Paloma Serna, believes this to be a fair settlement. 23 Now, the parties jointly move the Court for approval of the minor’s compromise and 24 approval of the final settlement. Upon this Court’s order, the parties filed a copy of the 25 final settlement agreement in addition to their Motion for Approval of Minor’s 26 Compromise. (ECF Nos. 511, 513.) Having now reviewed the Motion and the Settlement 27 Agreement, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Approval of Minor’s Compromise. (ECF 28 1 No. 509.) Additionally, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Motions to Seal. (ECF Nos. 508, 2 512.) 3 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 4 A. Minor’s Compromise 5 Local Civil Rule 17.1 addresses settlements involving minors and states: “Order of 6 Judgment Required. No action by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, or in which a 7 minor or incompetent has an interest, will be settled, compromised, voluntarily 8 discontinued, dismissed or terminated without court order or judgment.” CivLR 17.1(a). 9 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 11 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). To carry out this duty, the court must “conduct its own 12 inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. 13 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). In Robidoux, the 14 Ninth Circuit established that district courts reviewing the settlement of a minor’s federal 15 claim should “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net amount 16 distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the 17 facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases. Id. at 1181–82. 18 District courts should “evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without 19 regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or 20 plaintiff’s counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. 21 at 1182 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078). “So long as the net recovery to each minor 22 plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery in similar cases, 23 the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the parties.” Id. 24 The Ninth Circuit limited its holding in Robidoux “to cases involving the settlement 25 of a minor’s federal claims” and did “not express a view on the proper approach for a 26 federal court to use when sitting in diversity and approving the settlement of a minor’s state 27 law claims.” Id. at 1179 n.2. 28 1 Under California law, the court is similarly tasked with evaluating the 2 reasonableness of the settlement and determining whether the compromise is in the best 3 interest of the minor. See A.M.L. v. Cernaianu, No. LA CV12-06082 JAK (RZx), 2014 4 WL 12588992, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014). The California Probate Code “bestows 5 broad power on the court to authorize payment from the settlement—to say who and what 6 will be paid from the minor’s money—as well as direct certain individuals to pay it.” 7 Goldberg v. Superior Court, 23 Cal. App. 4th 1378, 1382 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (analyzing 8 Cal. Prob. Code § 3601). The Probate Code also “authorizes the court approving a 9 compromise of a minor’s disputed claim to “make a further order authorizing and directing 10 that reasonable expenses, . . . costs, and attorney’s fees, as the court shall approve and allow 11 therein, shall be paid from the money or other property to be paid or delivered for the 12 benefit of the minor.” Cal. Prob. Code § 3601(a). 13 District courts are split on whether the Robidoux standard applies to the evaluation 14 of a minor’s compromise regarding state-law claims. See DeRuyver v. Omni La Costa 15 Resort & Spa, LLC, Case No.: 3:17-cv-0516-H-AGS, 2020 WL 563551, at *2 n.1 (S.D. 16 Cal. Feb. 4, 2020) (citing cases). However, where the outcome is the same, the court need 17 not resolve whether Robidoux or state rules apply. Castro v. United States, Case No. 19- 18 cv-02240-AJB-JLB, 2022 WL 594545, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2022) (collecting cases); 19 see also A.M.L., 2020 WL 7130506, at *2 (finding it unnecessary to resolve whether 20 Robidoux or state rules applied to the approval of a minor’s compromise where the 21 proposed settlement would satisfy both standards). 22 Courts in this district exercising diversity jurisdiction over state-law claims have 23 found Robidoux persuasive in providing a framework for evaluating the reasonableness 24 and fairness of the settlement. See DeRuyver, 2020 WL 563551, at *2; see also Lobaton 25 v. City of San Diego, Case No. 3:15-cv-1416-GPC-DHB, 2017 WL 2610038, at *2 (S.D. 26 Cal. June 16, 2017) (relying on Robidoux as a framework when exercising supplemental 27 jurisdiction over a state law claim). 28 1 B. Motion to Seal 2 When it comes to court records, courts adhere to a strong presumption in favor of 3 public access. See, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) 4 (“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records 5 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” (citation omitted)); see also 6 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Unless a 7 particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of 8 access’ is the starting point.” (citation omitted)). 9 Thus, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this 10 strong presumption of access. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 11 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The heft of that burden depends on the type of motion tied to the 12 documents sought to be sealed. When the related motion is more than “tangentially related 13 to the merits of the case,” the more rigorous “compelling reasons” standard applies. Ctr. 14 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). If the related 15 document is only tangentially related to the merits of the case, the more relaxed “good 16 cause” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. 17 A motion to approve a minor’s compromise and the settlement as a whole is more 18 than tangentially related to the merits of a case, and thus the compelling reasons standard 19 applies to such motions. Under this standard, “the [moving] party must articulate 20 compelling reasons [to seal a document] supported by specific factual findings.” 21 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation omitted). These compelling reasons must “outweigh 22 the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public 23 interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79 (citation omitted). “[T]he 24 use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, 25 or release trade secrets” all constitute compelling reasons to seal court records. Id. at 1179. 26 Courts will also seal “sensitive personal information.” Id. 27 28 1 Ultimately, when ruling on motions to seal, district courts have wide discretion and 2 must consider “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 435 3 U.S. at 599. 4 III. ANALYSIS 5 A. Reasonableness and Fairness of the Settlement 6 The Court finds that the total settlement amount of $15 million, with 7 going to S.R.S. individually, is reasonable, fair, and in S.R.S.’s best interests. In sum, 8 S.R.S. will receive , or . After attorney’s fees and 9 costs, parties anticipate S.R.S. will receive , individually, as a result of the 10 settlement agreement. The parties represent that such an amount “is expected to yield over 11 in S.R.S.’s lifetime.” (ECF No. 509 at 7:20–21.) 12 The Court’s research demonstrates that a individual recovery is within 13 the accepted range of settlements for similar claims and injuries in federal and state courts 14 within this Circuit. For instance, in Hagan, a minor child and surviving widow brought an 15 action alleging the decedent was “incarcerated at the Butte County Jail, where he was 16 denied medication (Prednisone) needed to treat his asthma; was later transferred to the 17 High Desert State Prison, where he was inadequately treated by incompetent staff; and was 18 eventually flown—much too late—to a hospital, where he died.” Hagan v. California 19 Forensic Med. Grp., No. CIV. S-07-1095 LKK, 2012 WL 5397989, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20 2, 2012). The minor ultimately received two annuities approved in two different motions, 21 with $35,000.00 paid by one defendant, and $15,000 by another defendant, for a total of 22 $50,000.00 for the minor plaintiff, after deduction of attorneys’ fees. Hagan v. Cal. 23 Forensic Med. Grp., No. 2:07-CV-1095 LKK AC, 2013 WL 461501, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24 5, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:07-CV-1095 LKK AC, 2013 WL 25 552386 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2013); Hagan v. Cal. Forensic Med. Grp., 2012 WL 5397989, 26 at *1. In another instance, a court approved a net distribution of $19,092.75 to a minor 27 whose father died in county jail due to a seizure disorder that employees failed to properly 28 monitor or treat. Cantu v. Kings Cnty., No. 120CV00538JLTSAB, 2023 WL 8806569, at 1 *9 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2 120CV00538JLTSAB, 2024 WL 169153 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2024). 3 Courts have also approved minor’s compromise allotments in the millions. For 4 example, a court found a six-year-old plaintiff’s net payment of $4,564,753.45 was fair and 5 reasonable where her mother and grandmother were killed in a vehicle accident, requiring 6 the minor plaintiff be adopted. Paregien v. Wilshire Ins. Co., No. 1:15-cv-1621-AWI-JLT, 7 2017 WL 6447192, at *1, *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2017). 8 S.R.S. has suffered no physical injuries. (ECF No. 509 at 16:15.) Prior to Elisa 9 Serna’s death, S.R.S. was unaware Elisa Serna was her biological mother. (ECF No. 509- 10 2, Ex. B ¶ 26.) S.R.S. now knows Elisa Serna was her biological mother, talks about her, 11 remembers her, and misses her. (Id. ¶ 29.) So far, S.R.S. has not received, nor has she 12 indicated any need for, psychiatric treatment. (Id. ¶ 30.) Her grandmother describes her 13 as “a healthy and happy child surrounded by a loving family.” (Id.) 14 Given that Defendants contested the significance of the relationship between Elisa 15 Serna and S.R.S., as well as causation and liability, this settlement award generously 16 compensates S.R.S. Therefore, the Court finds that the settlement is fair, adequate, and in 17 S.R.S.’s best interests. 18 B. Attorney’s Fees and Litigation Costs 19 To be collected from S.R.S.’s individual settlement allocation, “Plaintiffs request 20 that the Court approve costs of and attorneys’ fees of 25 percent or .” 21 (ECF No. 509 at 11:5–6.) 22 Plaintiffs’ attorneys estimate the total costs associated with the case to be 23 approximately $225,000.00. (Id. at 11:11–12.; ECF No. 509-1, Ex. A ¶ 3.) Assuming 24 S.R.S. receives of the settlement allocation, S.R.S. would be responsible for 25 of those fees, or . However, Plaintiffs’ counsel do not seek to recover their 26 full $225,000 in costs. Plaintiffs’ counsel represent that they “reduced the costs 27 substantially for all parties by eliminating much of the in-house expenses and travel costs 28 of the parties” and reduced costs to “approximately $188,000.” (ECF No. 509 at 11:14– 1 15; ECF No. 509-1, Ex. A ¶ 6.) of $188,000 is . But, to reduce 2 S.R.S.’s obligation, Michael and Paloma Serna have offered to pay more than their share 3 of the costs, thus requiring S.R.S. to pay rather than . (ECF No. 509 at 4 11:15–17.) Having reviewed the materials provided by the parties, the Court finds such 5 costs to be fair and reasonable to S.R.S. 6 As for attorney’s fees, the parties “request[] approval for attorneys’ fees of 25% of 7 the minor’s settlement amount.” (Id. at 11:19–20.) “Generally, fees in minors cases have 8 historically been limited to 25% of the gross recovery.” Napier by & through Quiroz v. 9 San Diego Cnty., No. 315CV00581CABKSC, 2017 WL 5759803, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10 28, 2017). To determine whether the fee is reasonable, courts consider a myriad of factors 11 including: the amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services performed, the 12 novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and skills required, the amount involved 13 and the results obtained, and the experience and ability of the attorney. Cal. Rule of Ct. 14 7.955(b). 15 S.R.S.’s counsel have extensive experience and have worked on this case on a 16 contingency basis for the past five years, handling discovery, experts, and trial preparation 17 while advancing substantial costs. (See ECF No. 509-1, Ex. A ¶¶ 9–15, 19.) Further, 18 counsel have achieved excellent results in this case by obtaining for S.R.S. 19 Because the fees requested do not exceed 25% of S.R.S.’s gross recovery, and because 20 counsel achieved extraordinary results in this case, the amount requested is reasonable and 21 fair. 22 C. Motions to Seal 23 Because approval of the minor’s compromise in this action effectively concludes 24 this case, the Court shall apply the compelling reasons standard to the parties’ motions to 25 seal. 26 1. S.R.S.’s Name 27 The parties seek to redact or abbreviate all references to S.R.S.’s full name. (ECF 28 No. 508.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.(a)(3) sets a default rule that any party filing 1 a document containing the name of an individual known to be a minor include only the 2 minor’s initials. Here, S.R.S. is eight years old and a minor. Therefore, the default rule 3 applies. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ request to use S.R.S.’s initials in 4 place of her full name anywhere it appears in the parties’ materials. Where S.R.S.’s full 5 name appears as part of an exhibit, such as part of a settlement payout schedule or on her 6 adoption decree, the parties are ORDERED to redact her full name, pursuant to Rule 7 5.2.(d). 8 2. Settlement Allocations and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 9 The parties further request leave of the Court to seal all references to how the 10 settlement shall be allocated. (ECF Nos. 508, 512.) In support, the parties state that they 11 seek to protect S.R.S.’s privacy interests, which may be compromised due to the intense 12 media attention on this case. The parties seek to seal the settlement allocation granted to 13 each recipient so as to prevent anyone from deducing the amount S.R.S. receives. The 14 Court finds these reasons compelling and persuasive. These reasons also support sealing 15 information related to the amount of fees and costs S.R.S. must pay because these amounts 16 are determined by her individual recovery. Thus, at the request of the parties and for the 17 protection of the minor, the Court GRANTS the Motions to Seal the allocations of the 18 settlement. (ECF Nos. 508, 512.) 19 IV. CONCLUSION 20 The parties’ Joint Petition for Order Approving Settlement Involving a Minor and 21 Distribution of Settlement Funds is hereby GRANTED. (ECF No. 509.) The parties are 22 ORDERED that the settlement be implemented according to its terms. 23 Further, the parties’ Motions to Seal are hereby GRANTED. (ECF Nos. 508, 512.) 24 Plaintiffs are instructed to file public versions of the Petition for Approval of Minor’s 25 Compromise (ECF No. 509), and of the Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 513), with the 26 sealed information redacted, on the public docket three days from the date of this Order. 27 See Chambers Rule 5.A. (requiring parties to file under seal only the portions of documents 28 1 ||necessary to protect sensitive information). Parties may reference the redactions in this 2 || Order as a guide. 3 The parties having disposed of all pending claims, the Clerk of the Court is directed 4 || to close the case. Per the settlement agreement, Judge Leshner shall retain jurisdiction to 5 |}enforce the Agreement for a one-year period beginning June 28, 2024. (ECF No. 513 at 6 |] 13.) 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 / 9 || DATED: September 10, 2024 ( pid li A (Syoha sk 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 —41n.