1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11

12 GUILLERMO BONILLA-CHIRINOS No. 2:15-cv-2564 WBS EFB and SANDRA HERNANDEZ, 13 individually and as guardians ad litem of J.B., a minor, 14 Plaintiffs, 15 ORDER RE: MINOR’S COMPROMISE v. 16 CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO and 17 police officers KENNETH

FELLOWS, MICHELLE TATE,

18 ANTHONY HERRERA, THOMAS

MAGGIANO, JENNIFER GRILLAT,

19 ERIC ANGLE, MATTHEW LUIZ, and DAVID STALLIONS, in their 20 individual and official capacities, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 ----oo0oo---- 25 Plaintiffs Guillermo Bonilla-Chirinos and Sandra 26 Hernandez, individually and on behalf of their son J.B., brought 27 this action against defendants the City of West Sacramento (“the 28 City”) and several West Sacramento police officers alleging, 1 among other things, that defendants used excessive force in 2 arresting them and violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to 3 familial association. After the court granted summary judgment 4 in whole or in part as to several claims and defendants (Docket 5 No. 40) and the Ninth Circuit found that qualified immunity 6 applied to plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment familial association 7 claims (Docket No. 90), the only claims remaining are plaintiffs’ 8 excessive force claims against Kenneth Fellows, Michelle Tate, 9 and Anthony Herrera. J.B.’s sole remaining claim is that 10 defendant Herrera used excessive force against him by pointing a 11 shotgun in his direction during his parents’ arrest at their 12 residence. 13 After the case was remanded by the Ninth Circuit, the 14 parties settled the case and plaintiffs now seek approval of the 15 settlement for J.B., a minor. (Docket No. 101.) The court held 16 a hearing on plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Minor’s Compromise on 17 January 13, 2020. 18 Under the Eastern District of California’s Local Rules, 19 the court must approve the settlement of the claims of a minor. 20 E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b). The party moving for approval of the 21 settlement must provide the court “information as may be required 22 to enable the [c]ourt to determine the fairness of the settlement 23 or compromise[.]” Id. at L.R. 202(b)(2); see also Robidoux v. 24 Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that 25 district courts have a duty “to safeguard the interests of minor 26 plaintiffs” that requires them to “determine whether the net 27 amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the proposed 28 settlement is fair and reasonable[.]”). 1 In Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit specifically instructed 2 district courts to “limit the scope of their review to the 3 question whether the net amount distributed to each minor 4 plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of 5 the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery 6 in similar cases.” 638 F.3d at 1181-82. 7 Under the proposed settlement, plaintiff Sandra 8 Hernandez will receive $9,800 and plaintiffs Guillermo Bonilla- 9 Chirinos and J.B. will receive no compensation. (Mot. 2 (Docket 10 No. 101).)1 While the court has some concern about a settlement 11 which provides no compensation to minor J.B., the court 12 recognizes plaintiffs’ representations that (1) there were no 13 claims by J.B. that he suffered any physical injuries or physical 14 abuse at the hands of defendants; (2) J.B.’s excessive force 15 claim was unlikely to succeed with a jury and was weaker than his 16 claim for deprivation of familial association, which was 17 dismissed by the Ninth Circuit; (3) J.B. has difficulty 18 remembering and articulating how the incident emotionally 19 impacted him, which would make it difficult to prove damages to a 20 jury;2 (4) the time and expenses involved in trying the claim 21 greatly outweigh the nominal damages he might receive from a 22 jury; (5) the jury would likely reject J.B.’s claim, leading to 23 taxation of statutory costs against him; and (6) his mother’s 24 claim for emotional and physical damages was the strongest of the

25 1 Plaintiffs do not state what portion of this settlement amount, if any, will be deducted for attorney’s fees. 26

27 2 Indeed, at the hearing on the motion, J.B.’s mother stated that while he has some memory of the events at issue in 28 the complaint, he did not remember a gun being pointed at him. 1 remaining claims in this case. (Mot. 3-5.) The court further 2 recognizes that defendants have vigorously defended this case, 3 including successfully obtaining a reversal of this court’s 4 denial of qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s deprivation of 5 familial association claim, and defendants continue to deny any 6 liability. 7 The court, having considered all of the papers on file 8 as well as the parties’ representations at the hearing on this 9 | motion, finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable and in 10 the best interests of minor J.B., given all of the circumstances 11 of this case, notwithstanding the fact that he will receive no 12 | compensation.? See E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b); see also Robidoux, 638 13 F.3d at 1179. Accordingly, the court will approve the settlement 14 of plaintiffs’ claims against defendants and will grant 15 | plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Minor’s Compromise. 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Approve 17 Minor’s Compromise (Docket No. 101) be, and the same hereby is, 18 GRANTED. 19 Dated: January 14, 2020 he . ak. 20 WILIAMB SHUBB==~”C~COCOCO 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 29 3 Plaintiffs cite no case involving a minor’s compromise 26 where the minor received no compensation, though the court notes that if plaintiffs had simply dismissed J.B.’s claim, no approval 27 of the court would be required. This settlement of J.B.’s claim for no compensation, but in effect a waiver of costs, is 28 | tantamount to such a dismissal.