Brock v. County of Fresno, 1:18-cv-01615

Ernest O’Neil Rahkin Brock, an incompetent adult, suffered severe and permanent brain damage after an assault by a cellmate in Fresno County Jail, allegedly due to improper segregation by correctional officers following his arrest on child pornography charges.
Plaintiff, through his guardian ad litem and grandmother, Karen Norris, brought federal and state law claims against the County of Fresno, including civil rights violations and negligence.
The parties reached a settlement agreement for $3 million to resolve all claims brought by Brock.
Plaintiff’s motion sought court approval of the settlement, specific fund allocation (including attorney fees, costs, an annuity, and a special needs trust), and disbursement instructions.
The County of Fresno did not oppose the settlement approval but requested assurance that all Medi-Cal and other liens would be satisfied before payment.
The Court conducted a detailed review under local rules and federal standards to ensure the settlement served the plaintiff’s best interests, ultimately recommending reduction of attorney’s fees from 40% to 33% of the gross settlement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the $3 million settlement fair and reasonable?	Settlement is fair given injuries and typical recoveries in similar cases	No objection to amount, only concern about liens	Settlement is fair and reasonable in light of facts and similar cases
Should attorney fees be 40% of the gross settlement?	40% fee warranted by extensive litigation and favorable result	No objection, defer to court’s discretion	Fees reduced to 33% ($990,000); 40% is excessive
Are the special needs trust and annuity appropriate?	Both are necessary to protect Brock’s interests and public benefits	No objection, seeks lien protection	Both trust and annuity approved for plaintiff’s protection
Is additional lien protection necessary?	Plaintiff will address and satisfy all liens	Payments should ensure all liens are resolved	Court directs lien payments to be satisfied from trust

Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (court must ensure settlements for minors and incompetents serve their best interests and focus on net recovery rather than attorney’s fees)
Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1978) (district court has a special duty to protect incompetent parties in settlement proceedings)