1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J.V., a minor, by and through her guardian No. 1:19-cv-00035-DAD-SAB ad litem, DALIA MARTINEZ, 12 individually and as successor-in-interest to

THE ESTATE OF SERGIO MANUEL

13 VALDOVINOS JR., ORDER RESETTING HEARING ON

PETITION FOR MINOR’S COMPROMISE

14 Plaintiff, (Doc. No. 9) 15 v.

16 CITY OF MADERA, 17 Defendant. 18 19 On May 15, 2019, plaintiff J.V. (“plaintiff” or “J.V.”), by and through her guardian ad 20 litem Dalia Martinez, filed a petition for approval of a compromise of her claims against 21 defendant City of Madera (the “City”) (the “petition”). (Doc. No. 9.) The City has not opposed 22 the petition. 23 The court initially deemed the petition suitable for decision without oral argument 24 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Local Rule 230(g) and vacated the noticed 25 July 16, 2019 hearing. (Doc. No. 13.) Closer review of the motion, however, has raised some 26 questions in the court’s mind relating to the structure of the “present value” settlement reached as 27 well as the total payments that are to be generated over time to J.V. under the settlement. In 28 addition, the pending petition does not provide specific support for counsel request that 33.3% of 1 | J.V.’s share of the settlement fund be paid in attorneys’ fees. Such support is necessary in light of 2 | the fact that in the Eastern District of California, 25% of the recovery is a reasonable benchmark 3 | for attorneys’ fees in contingency cases involving minors, subject to a showing of good cause to 4 | exceed that percentage. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Riverstone Residential Grp., No. 2:11-cv-02202- 5 | LKK-CKD, 2013 WL 1680641, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2013); McCue v. South Fork Union Sch. 6 | Dist., No. 1:10-cv-00233-LJO-MJS, 2012 WL 2995666, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2012); Welch v. 7 | Cty. of Sacramento, No. 2:07-cv-00794-GEB-EFB, 2008 WL 3285412, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 8 | 2008); Red v. Merced Cty., No. 1:06-cv-01003-GSA, 2008 WL 1849796, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9 | 23, 2008); Schwall v. Meadow Wood Apartments, No. 2:07-cv-00014-LKK, 2008 WL 552432, at 10 | *1, (ED. Cal. Feb. 27, 2008); Walden v. Moffett, No. 1:04-cv-06680-LJO-DLB, 2007 WL 11 | 2859790, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2007). 12 Accordingly, the court will place the petition back on for hearing on September 4, 2019 at 13 | 9:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) to address these issues. Plaintiffs counsel, defendant’s counsel 14 | and plaintiffs guardian ad litem, Dalia Martinez, are directed to appear at the hearing but may do 15 | so telephonically by dialing 877-402-9757 (access code 6966236) at the time of the hearing. 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ | Dated: _ August 19, 2019 Yi A Load 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28