Martinez et al v. Venegas et al, No. 3:2023cv00130 - Document 32 (S.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER Granting Joint Amended Petitions for Approval of Minor's Compromises (ECF Nos. 30 , 31 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 09/07/2023.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cxl1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Martinez et al v. Venegas et al Doc. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW MARTINEZ, et al., Case No.: 23-cv-0130-CAB-BGS Plaintiffs, 12 13 v. 14 EDGAR LORENZO GAMBOA VENEGAS, et al., 15 16 ORDER GRANTING JOINT AMENDED PETITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISES [ECF NOS. 30, 31] Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pending before the Court are two Joint Amended Joint Petitions for Approval of Minor’s Compromise filed by Plaintiffs J.M. and A.B., respectively, by and through their guardian ad litem, Andrew Martinez, and Defendant MD International Baja S De RL De CV. (Joint Am. Pets., ECF Nos. 30, 31.) Having reviewed the Joint Amended Petitions and supporting documents, and for the reasons discussed below, the petitions are GRANTED, and the minors’ compromises are hereby APPROVED. I. BACKGROUND On April 22, 2021, Plaintiffs Andrew Martinez, Desiree Bustamante, minor J.M., and minor A.B., filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. (ECF No. 1-4 at 2-5.) Plaintiffs asserted state law claims for property damage and personal injury arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 12, 2019, 1 23-cv-0130-CAB-BGS Dockets.Justia.com 1 near Camp Pendleton in San Diego County. (Id. at 2, 5.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant 2 Edgar Lorenzo Gamboa Venegas was operating a motor vehicle during the course of his 3 employment with Defendant MD International Baja S De RL De CV (erroneously sued 4 as MD International Baja) at the time of the accident. (Id. at 5.) On January 24, 2023, 5 Defendant MD International Baja S De RL De CV removed the case to this Court on the 6 basis of diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.)1 7 On July 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Motion to File Attachments to 8 Minors’ Compromise Petitions Under Seal. (ECF No. 14.) The motion indicated that a 9 settlement had been reached with respect to minors J.M. and A.B. (Id.) On July 18, 2023, 10 the Court issued an Order (1) Regarding Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise 11 and (2) Denying Ex Parte Motion to File Attachments to Minors’ Compromise Petitions 12 Under Seal. (ECF No. 15.) On August 1, 2023, following the directives in the Court’s 13 July 18, 2023 Order, Plaintiffs filed petitions for appointment of guardian ad litem on 14 behalf of A.B. and J.M. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) On August 2, 2023, pursuant to the parties’ 15 consent, the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo referred this case to the undersigned for 16 purposes of reviewing the minors’ compromises. (ECF No. 21.) On August 9, 2023, this 17 Court granted the petitions for appointment of guardian ad litem and appointed Andrew 18 Martinez as the guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiffs. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.) 19 On August 30, 2023, the parties filed Joint Amended Petitions for Approval of 20 Minor’s Compromise with respect to Plaintiffs J.M. and A.B., respectively. (ECF Nos. 21 30, 31.) 22 /// 23 /// 24 25 26 27 28 1 Although Defendant Venegas has not appeared in this action, he is a party to the settlement. See Joint Am. Joint. Pets., Ex. A, ECF No. 30 at 8 & ECF No. 31 at 8) (defining “Defendants” as including “MD International Baja S De RL De CV and Edgar Lorenzo Gamboa Venegas, their representatives, officers, directors, agents, insurers, and attorneys, family members, ancestors, heirs, and executors, and any related persons and/or entities involved or alleged to have been involved in any way in the Accident, whether known or unknown”). 2 23-cv-0130-CAB-BGS 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Local Civil Rule 17.1 addresses settlements involving minors: 3 Order of Judgment Required. No action by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, or in which a minor or incompetent has an interest, will be settled, compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated without court order or judgment. All settlements and compromises must be reviewed by a magistrate judge before any order of approval will issue. The parties may, with district judge approval consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for entry of an order approving the entire settlement or compromise. 4 5 6 7 8 9 S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 17.1(a). 10 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 12 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). To carry out this duty, the court must “conduct its own 13 inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. 14 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). In Robidoux, the 15 Ninth Circuit established that district courts reviewing the settlement of a minor’s federal 16 claim should “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net amount 17 distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the 18 facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases. Id. at 1181-82. 19 District courts should “evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without 20 regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or 21 plaintiff’s counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” 22 Id. at 1182 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078). “So long as the net recovery to each 23 minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery in 24 similar cases, the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the parties.” 25 Id. 26 The Ninth Circuit limited its holding in Robidoux “to cases involving the 27 settlement of a minor’s federal claims” and did “not express a view on the proper 28 approach for a federal court to use when sitting in diversity and approving the settlement 3 23-cv-0130-CAB-BGS 1 of a minor’s state law claims.” Id. at 1179 n.2. Under California law, the court is tasked 2 with evaluating the reasonableness of the settlement and determining whether the 3 compromise is in the best interest of the minor. See A.M.L. v. Cernaianu, No. LA CV12- 4 06082 JAK (RZx), 2014 WL 12588992, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014) (citations 5 omitted). The California Probate Code “bestows broad power on the court to authorize 6 payment from the settlement—to say who and what will be paid from the minor’s 7 money—as well as direct certain individuals to pay it.” Goldberg v. Superior Court, 23 8 Cal. App. 4th 1378, 1382, 28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 613 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (analyzing Cal. 9 Prob. Code § 3601). District courts are split on whether the Robidoux standard applies to 10 the evaluation of a minor’s compromise regarding state law claims. See DeRuyver v. 11 Omni La Costa Resort & Spa, LLC, Case No.: 3:17-cv-0516-H-AGS, 2020 WL 563551, 12 at *2 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2020) (citing cases). “[H]owever, it is not necessary for the 13 Court to resolve the question of whether Robidoux or state rules apply. The outcome is 14 the same.” Castro v. United States, Case No. 19-cv-02240-AJB-JLB, 2022 WL 594545, 15 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2022) (collecting cases); see also A.M.L., 2020 WL 7130506, at 16 *2 (finding it unnecessary to resolve whether Robidoux or state rules applied to the 17 approval of a minor’s compromise where the proposed settlement would satisfy both 18 standards). Courts in this district exercising diversity jurisdiction over state law claims 19 have found Robidoux persuasive in providing a framework for evaluating the 20 reasonableness and fairness of the settlement. See DeRuyver, 2020 WL 563551, at *2; see 21 also Lobaton v. City of San Diego, Case No. 3:15-cv-1416-GPC-DHB, 2017 WL 22 2610038, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 16, 2017) (relying on Robidoux as a framework when 23 exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim). 24 25 III. DISCUSSION The parties have agreed to settle J.M.’s claim for $2,000. (ECF No. 30 at 2.) 26 Plaintiff sought treatment with her primary care physician on one occasion, six days 27 following the accident, with complaints of pain in her left leg, starting from the left knee 28 leading down her leg. (Id.) She was prescribed Ibuprofen to take as needed over a two4 23-cv-0130-CAB-BGS 1 week course. (Id.) J.M. underwent x-ray imaging of her left leg, ankle, and foot on 2 October 29, 2019, which ruled out any fractures. (Id.) J.M. has fully recovered from her 3 injuries and has not sustained any permanent injuries, pain, or suffering. (Id.) Her 4 medical expenses have been reduced to a total of $161.99, with $120.06 payable to 5 Adoracion Reyes, M.D., and $41.93 payable to the Department of Health Care Services. 6 The net amount to be distributed on J.M.’s behalf is $1,223.01, following deductions of 7 $161.99 in medical expenses, $500.00 for attorney’s fees, and $115.00 in costs. (Id. at 4.) 8 Upon consideration of the facts of the case, Plaintiff’s claims, and recoveries in similar 9 actions, the Court finds the net amount of the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the 10 11 minor’s best interests considering the facts and circumstances of this action. The parties have agreed to settle A.B.’s claim for $1,000. (ECF No. 31 at 2.) 12 Plaintiff sought treatment with her primary care physician on one occasion, six days 13 following the accident, with complaints of pain in her left leg and ankle. (Id.) She was 14 prescribed Ibuprofen as needed and instructed to return if her symptoms persisted. (Id.) 15 A.B. has fully recovered from her injuries. (Id.) No medical provider is seeking 16 reimbursement for medical services rendered. (Id.) The net amount to be distributed on 17 A.B.’s behalf is $620.00, following deductions of $250.00 for attorney’s fees and 18 $130.00 in costs. (Id. at 4.) Upon consideration of the facts of the case, Plaintiff’s claims, 19 and recoveries in similar actions, the Court finds the net amount of the settlement to be 20 fair, reasonable, and in the minor’s best interests considering the facts and circumstances 21 of this action. 22 In addition to assessing whether the settlement is fair and reasonable, the Court, 23 under California law, must approve the attorney’s fees and costs to be paid for 24 representation of a minor. See Cal. Prob. Code § 3601. Where counsel represents a minor 25 on a contigency fee basis, attorney’s fees are generally limited to 25% of the gross 26 recovery. See Doe v. Lincoln Military Prop. Mgmt., LP, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00224-GPC- 27 AHG, 2020 WL 5810168, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2020). Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel 28 requests exactly 25% of each settlement amount. Under the facts and circumstances of 5 23-cv-0130-CAB-BGS 1 this action, the requested attorney’s fees are reasonable. Additionally, the Court finds that 2 the costs incurred by Plaintiffs’ counsel, which are relatively minimal, are reasonable. 3 Finally, under California law, settlement proceeds less than $5,000.00 may be paid 4 or delivered to a parent entitled to the custody of the minor or to the guardian of the 5 minor’s estate, to be held in trust for the minor until the minor reaches majority, if certain 6 requirements are satisfied: (1) the total estate of the minor, including the money to be 7 paid or delivered to the parent or guardian, does not exceed $5,000.00 in value, and (2) 8 the parent or guardian to whom the money is to be paid or delivered gives the person 9 making the payment or delivery written assurance, verified by oath, that the total estate of 10 the minor, including the money to be paid or delivered to the parent, does not exceed 11 $5,000.00 in value. Cal. Prob. Code §§ 3401, 3611(e). 12 IV. 13 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Joint Amended Petitions for Approval of 14 Minor’s Compromises are GRANTED. 15 16 Petitions are in the best interests of J.M. and A.B. and are hereby approved. 17 1. 2. The compromise and terms of the settlement as set forth in the Amended Guardian ad litem Andrew Martinez is authorized to enter into the settlement 18 on behalf of Plaintiff J.M. and pay $161.99 in medical expenses ($120.06 to Adoracion 19 Reyes, M.D., and $41.93 to Department of Health Care Services), attorney’s fees in the 20 amount of $500.00, and costs in the amount of $115.00 out of the gross settlement 21 amount of $2,000.00. 22 3. Guardian ad litem Andrew Martinez is authorized to enter into the settlement 23 on behalf of Plaintiff A.B. and pay attorney’s fees in the amount of $250.00 and costs in 24 the amount of $130.00 out of the gross settlement amount of $1,000.00. 25 4. The net recovery to Plaintiff J.M. of $1,223.01 in settlement of this matter 26 shall be delivered without bond to guardian ad litem Andrew Martinez, J.M.’s father, and 27 Oakwood Legal Group, LLP, 8124 West 3rd Street, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90048, 28 6 23-cv-0130-CAB-BGS 1 to be held in trust until J.M. reaches the age of majority, upon the terms and conditions 2 specified in California Probate Code § 3401. 3 5. The net recovery to Plaintiff A.B. of $620.00 in settlement of this matter 4 shall be delivered without bond to guardian ad litem Andrew Martinez, A.B.’s 5 grandfather and legal guardian, and Oakwood Legal Group, LLP, 8124 West 3rd Street, 6 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90048, to be held in trust until A.B. reaches the age of 7 majority, upon the terms and conditions specified in California Probate Code § 3401. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 7, 2023 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 23-cv-0130-CAB-BGS
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
