United States District Court, E.D. California
TAYLOR FITZGERALD, individually and as Parent and Guardian of R.B., a Minor Child, Plaintiffs,
v.
PAPA MURPHY'S INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Foreign Corporation d/b/a PAPA MURPHY'S TAKE N BAKE; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; and ROE ENTITIES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. PAPA MURPHY'S INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
CH ROBINSON COMPANY, et al., Third-Party Defendant.
Craig
M. Murphy, Esq. MURPHY & MURPHY LAW OFFICES Attorneys for
Plaintiff
ORDER GRANTING EX-PARTE PETITION FOR COMPROMISE OF
MINOR'S CLAIM
This
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Ex-Parte Petition
for Compromise of Minor's Claim. [Doc. No. 4');">41] Based upon
the Court's review of the papers, __ and for the reasons
set forth below, the Court GRANTS the petition.
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner
is the natural parent and guardian of R.B., a minor. R.B. is
8 years old, having been born on June 26, 2011. As of May 8,
2018, federal, state and local health officials attributed a
multi-state outbreak of Escherichia coli O157;H7 to romaine
lettuce from Yuma, Arizona. [Doc. No. 4');">4, p. 11]. On or about
April 10, 2018, R.B. consumed romaine lettuce from the Yuma,
Arizona growing region in a salad at the Papa Murphy's
restaurant located at 4');">4819 Granite Drive, Rocklin, California
95677. The romaine lettuce was contaminated by E.
coli O157;H7 bacteria, leading to R.B.'s E.
coli O157;H7 infection and related injuries. [Doc. No.
4');">4, p. 13]. R.B. began feeling ill around April 12, 2018. He
experienced fevers, agonizing abdominal cramps, and bloody
diarrhea, culminating in his admittance to Sutter General
Sacramento on March 14');">4, 2018. [Doc. No. 4');">4, p. 13]. R.B.
tested positive for E. coli O157;H7. [Doc. No. 4');">4, p.
13]. R.B. remained hospitalized until April 30, 2018. During
his hospitalization, he developed HUS, and required four
blood transfusions. Id. Defendants produced,
distributed, and sold the contaminated food product that
injured R.B., and caused his E. coli O157;H7 infection. The
Defendants are, therefore, manufacturers, distributors, and
sellers of an adulterated food product, and the adulterated
food product reached R.B. without substantial change from the
condition in which it was sold by the Defendants. [Doc. No.
4');">4, p. 13].
Prior
to the filing of Plaintiffs' Complaint and First Amended
Complaint in this matter, the parties had engaged in
extensive settlement negotiations and attempts to settle the
Plaintiffs' claims. The Complaint and First Amended
Complaint were filed when the settlement negotiations were at
an impasse. After the filing of the First Amended Complaint,
the parties resumed settlement negotiations. In an attempt to
foster settlement negotiations and to avoid litigation costs
and expenses, the parties agreed to dismiss the case without
prejudice. [Doc. No. 37]. On September 12, 2018, the Court
entered an Order dismissing the case per the parties'
Stipulation. [Doc. No. 38].
The
parties thereafter continued pursuing this case and
eventually agreed to settle Plaintiffs' claims as a
result of a private mediation. On November 14');">4, 2019
Plaintiffs filed an Ex-Parte Petition to re-open this case to
allow them to file an Ex-Parte Petition to Compromise
Minor's Claim. [Doc. No. 39]. On November 15, 2019, this
Court entered an Order re-opening this case [Doc. No. 4');">40] to
allow Plaintiffs to file their Ex-Parte Petition for
Compromise of Minor's Claim. [Doc. No. 4');">41]. The parties
agreed to settle Plaintiffs' claims for $525, 000.00.
Plaintiffs requested that a Structured Settlement be
established for the deposit and safe-keeping of settlement
funds. The Structured Settlement will allow for the best
compounding of the settlement funds until R.B. reaches the
age of 18, and further provides for the periodic payment of
the funds after R.B. reaches 18 to further ensure he
maximizes the benefits of this settlement once he reaches the
age of majority. Plaintiffs therefore sought the Court's
approval of the settlement and the establishment of the
Structured Settlement annuity payable to R.B. the minor
herein.
II.
DISCUSSION
It is
well-settled that district courts have a special duty to
safeguard the interests of minor children in the context of
settlements proposed in civil lawsuits or claims for damages.
Robidoux v. Rosengren, 8 F.3d 1177');">638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir.
2011); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c)(2) (district courts
"must appoint a guardian ad litem-or issue another
appropriate order-to protect a minor or incompetent person
who is unrepresented in an action.") "This special
duty requires a district court to 'conduct its own
inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best
interest of the minor.'" Robidoux, 638 F.3d
at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075,
1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). See also Salmeron v. United
States, 4');">4 F.2d 1357');">724');">4 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding
that "a court must independently investigate and
evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor's claims
to assure itself that the minor's interests are
protected, even if the settlement has been recommended or
negotiated by the minor's parent or guardian ad
litem").
In
evaluating the propriety of a proposed settlement of a
minor's claim and "in considering the fairness of a
minor's state law settlement, federal courts generally
require that claims by minors . . . be settled in accordance
with the applicable state law." Lobaton v. City of
San Diego, No. 3:15-cv-14');">416-GPC-DHB, 2017 WL 2610038, at
*2 (June 16, 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). California law requires court approval of a
settlement for a minor and attorney's fees to represent a
minor. CAL. PROB. CODE § 3601; CAL FAM. CODE §
6602. The court is tasked with evaluating the reasonableness
of the settlement and determining whether the compromise is
in the best interest of the minor before approving a
settlement. Espericueta v. Shewry, 164');">4 Cal.App.4');">4th
615, 617 (2008). Furthermore, California Probate Code Section
3601 authorizes the court approving a compromise of a
minor's disputed claim to "make a further order
authorizing and directing that reasonable expenses, medical
or otherwise[, ] . . . costs, and attorney's fees, as the
court shall approve and allow therein, shall be paid from the
money or other property to be paid or delivered for the
benefit of the minor. CAL. PROB. CODE§ 3601(a). The
statute "bestows broad power on the court to authorize
payment from the settlement - to say who and what will be
paid from the minor's money - as well as direct certain
individuals to pay it." Goldberg v. Superior
Court, 4');">4th 1378');">23 Cal.App.4');">4th 1378, 1382 (1994');">4).
However,
following the Ninth Circuit's decision in
Robidoux, district courts have been split on whether or
not to apply Robidoux when evaluating the propriety
of a settlement of a minor's state law claims. See
Lobaton, 2017 WL 2610038, at *2; see also
Id. at n. 1 (collecting district court cases). The
Robdioux court provided that in cases involving the
settlement of a minor's federal claims, district courts
should "limit the scope of their review to the question
of whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff
is fair, in light of the facts of the case, the minor's
specific claim, and recovery in similar cases."
Robdioux, 638 F.3d at 1181. Here, the instant case
was filed in this Court on the basis of diversity of
citizenship. Thus, the court should apply California law and
focus on whether "the compromise is sufficient to
provide for the minor's injuries, care and
treatment." Goldberg, 23 Cal.App.4');">4th at 1382.
As a guide, the court may consider the guidelines set forth
in Robidoux because they provide a "framework
for evaluating the reasonableness and fairness of Plaintiff s
settlement." Lobaton, 2017 WL 2610038, at *2.
The
court finds that the proposed settlement of R.B.'s claims
is fair, reasonable and in the best interest of R.B. The
proposed settlement would result in a total payment of $525,
000.00 to R.B. The proposed settlement provides that $131,
250.00.00 of the proceeds would be paid to R.B.'s counsel
and that $8, 567.4');">45 would be reimbursed to counsel as and for
costs incurred in this matter. The proposed settlement
further provides that Plaintiff, Taylor Fitzgerald,
R.B.'s mother, be reimbursed $8, 558.53 in lost wages due
to missed work while caring for R.B. and seeing to his
medical care and treatment, and repaid $895.00 in
out-of-pocket expenses incurred for the care and treatment of
R.B. The proposed settlement further provides that R.B.'s
healthcare insurance provider's lien of $21, 4');">493.86 be
repaid. Thus, R.B., the minor, would receive a net payment of
$354');">4, 235.16, which shall be deposited into a structured
settlement annuity with Pacific Life & Annuity Services,
Inc. [Doc. No. 4');">41-6, pp. 1-7; and Doc. No. 4');">41-8, p. 2].
The
claims in this matter have been ongoing since May 2018.
Plaintiffs' counsel pursued claims against the named
Defendants in this matter. Prior to the filing of the
Complaint in this matter, the parties had engaged in
extensive settlement negotiations and attempts to settle the
Plaintiffs' claims. [Doc. No. 4');">41, p. 3]. The Complaint
was filed when the settlement negotiations were at an
impasse. The parties continued to engage in settlement
discussions and the case was voluntarily dismissed by the
parties without prejudice. [Doc. No. 37]. Since the ...