1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CASSANDRA MASON, a person who Case No. 1:20-cv-00859-EPG lacks legal capacity to make decisions, by 11 and through her guardian ad litem, Karen ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT Archibeque, 12 (ECF Nos. 42, 43) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

15 COMPANY, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter is before the Court on the application by Plaintiff Cassandra Mason, brought 19 through her guardian ad litem, Karen Archibeque (Plaintiff’s mother), to approve the parties’ 20 settlement in this case. (ECF Nos. 42, 43). The parties have consented to proceed before the 21 undersigned for all proceedings in this case. (ECF No. 26). 22 Having considered the application, the terms of the settlement, and the record in this 23 matter, the Court finds the proposed settlement to be fair and reasonable and in Plaintiff’s best 24 interest. Thus, the Court will approve the settlement. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 On June 22, 2020, Defendant removed this case from the Stanislaus Superior Court. (ECF 27 No. 1). In the state court complaint, Plaintiff sued Defendant Union Pacific Railroad and Does 1 28 through 100, alleging that, because of Defendants’ negligence, she was injured after being struck 1 by railroad equipment. (ECF No. 43, pp. 15-18). 2 In March 2022, the parties participated in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge 3 Dennis M. Cota and reached a settlement in principle. (ECF No. 36, p. 2). Plaintiff thereafter 4 obtained initial approval of the settlement in state court. (ECF No. 43, pp. 70-74). On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff, through her guardian ad litem, filed an application to approve the settlement 5 agreement along with the supporting declaration of her Attorney, Paul R. Scheele. (ECF Nos. 42, 6 43). On September 28, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the application, and after learning that 7 Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem was uncertain as to the reasonableness of the settlement, directed the 8 parties to confer further. (ECF Nos. 45, 46). 9 Ultimately, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson for a 10 confidential conference with the parties. (ECF No. 48). On November 14, 2023, the parties 11 appeared before Judge Peterson, and Plaintiff’s counsel “advised the [C]ourt that his client 12 wished to proceed with the settlement.” (ECF No. 50). 13 Accordingly, the Court held another hearing on the application to approve the settlement 14 on December 4, 2023. (ECF No. 51). At the hearing, the Court questioned Plaintiff’s guardian ad 15 litem, who confirmed that she had spoken to counsel about the risks and benefits associated with 16 settlement, that she had enough information to determine whether the settlement was reasonable, 17 and that she wished to proceed with the settlement. 18 II. TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT 19 Defendant has agreed to pay Plaintiff $50,000. (ECF No. 43, p. 71). From this amount, 20 $16,666.66 (or a 1/3 contingency fee) will be deducted for attorney fees, $3,265.85 will be 21 deducted for case expenses, and $14,508.43 will be deducted for medical expenses that Plaintiff 22 incurred. (Id.). This will leave a net total of $15,559.06 payable to Manuel Archibeque1 for the 23 benefit of Cassandra Mason. (Id. at 72). The declaration from Attorney Scheele in support of the settlement states that “[l]iability 24 was highly dispute in this case.” (ECF No. 43, p. 53). The parties conducted extensive discovery 25 and settled the case at the conference before Judge Cota. (Id.). Counsel has been a member in 26 27 1 At the hearing, it was represented that Manuel Archibeque is Plaintiff’s stepfather. (See also ECF No. 43, 28 p. 67). 1 good standing with the California Bar since 2005 and has specialized in personal injury work 2 since 2009. (Id.). Counsel believes the settlement is reasonable, appropriate, and fair. (Id. at 54). 3 III. LEGAL STANDARDS 4 Local Rule 202 governs approval of an incompetent person’s settlement. It states, in relevant part: 5

6 (b) Settlement. No claim by or against a minor or incompetent person may be settled or compromised absent an order by the Court approving the settlement or 7 compromise.

8 (1) Initial State Court Approval. In actions in which the minor or incompetent is 9 represented by an appointed representative pursuant to appropriate state law, excepting only those actions in which the United States courts have exclusive 10 jurisdiction, the settlement or compromise shall first be approved by the state court having jurisdiction over the personal representative. Following such approval, a 11 copy of the order and all supporting and opposing documents filed in connection therewith shall be filed in the District Court with a copy to all parties and to the 12 Judge or Magistrate Judge who may either approve the settlement or compromise 13 without hearing or calendar the matter for hearing.

14 (2) Approval in All Other Actions. In all other actions, the motion for approval of a proposed settlement or compromise shall be filed and calendared pursuant to 15 L.R. 230. The application shall disclose, among other things, the age and sex of the 16 minor or incompetent, the nature of the causes of action to be settled or compromised, the facts and circumstances out of which the causes of action arose, 17 including the time, place and persons involved, the manner in which the compromise amount or other consideration was determined, including such 18 additional information as may be required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement or compromise, and, if a personal injury claim, the nature 19 and extent of the injury with sufficient particularity to inform the Court whether 20 the injury is temporary or permanent. Local Rule 202(b)(1)-(2). Additionally, under Local Rule 202(e), 21 Whenever money . . . is recovered on behalf of a . . . incompetent person, the 22 money . . . will be (1) disbursed to the representative pursuant to state law upon a showing that the representative is duly qualified under state law, (2) disbursed 23 otherwise pursuant to state law, or (3) disbursed pursuant to such other order as the Court deems proper for the protection of the minor[.] 24 Id. at 202(e). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) also imposes on district courts a special duty to 26 safeguard the interests of litigants who are incompetent persons. Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 27 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). The court’s special duty requires it to “conduct its own inquiry to 28 1 determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the [incompetent person].” Id. 2 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); see Smith v. City of 3 Stockton, 185 F. Supp.3d 1242, 1243-44 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (although Robidoux concerned a minor, 4 applying Robidoux to a disabled adult plaintiff). In this inquiry, the district court is required to evaluate “whether the net amount distributed to each [incompetent] plaintiff in the settlement is 5 fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the [incompetent person’s] specific claim, and 6 recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. 7

IV. DISCUSSION

8 Plaintiff has attached a state court order from the Stanislaus Superior Court approving the 9 settlement. (ECF No. 43, pp. 70-74). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Local Rule 202(b)(1), 10 which requires initial state court approval of the settlement, has been satisfied. 11 Moreover, the application, through the declaration of counsel and corresponding 12 attachments, discloses the following information under Local Rule 202(b)(2): Plaintiff is an adult 13 woman who lacks the legal capacity to make decisions; the cause of action involves a general 14 negligence claim concerning Plaintiff being struck by railroad equipment and suffering personal 15 injury; an explanation of the basic facts concerning the claim; an overview of how the case was 16 settled at a settlement conference; and that Plaintiff has suffered some permanent injuries. (Id. at 17 1, 15, 17, 18, 21, 52-53). 18 As to whether the net settlement amount is fair and reasonable in light of the facts of the 19 case and claim, it appears based on counsel’s representations, that the issues were highly disputed 20 and the parties ultimately determined, after conducting extensive discovery, that a settlement was 21 in the best interests for all involved. Plaintiff will ultimately receive $15,559.06 after the 22 deduction of attorney fees, case expenses, and medical expenses. 23 Additionally, the Court gives weight to the fact that the settlement was reached following a court-facilitated settlement conference and that the Stanislaus Superior Court has initially 24 approved the settlement. Moreover, the Court notes that all the parties, including Plaintiff’s 25 guardian ad litem, have stated that they support this settlement agreement. 26 Based on these circumstances, the Court concludes that the settlement is fair and 27 reasonable for Plaintiff. 28 1 V. ORDER 2 Based on the above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application for approval of the 3 | settlement (ECF Nos. 42, 43) is approved. By no later than February 19, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel 4 | Shall issue payment of $15,559.06 by check or draft payable to the order of Manuel Archibeque 5 for the benefit of Cassandra Mason.” By no later than March 11, 2024, the parties shall file an 6 appropriate dispositional document to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 9 | Dated: _ December 21, 2023 [spe ey □□

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 || ———— > Tf Plaintiffs counsel needs additional time to issue the payment, counsel may file a motion explaining the 28 grounds for the extension and proposing a new date to issue the payment.