Cantu v. Kings County
1:20-cv-00538-JLT-SAB
E.D. Cal.Dec 1, 2023Background
- Minor plaintiff G.C., through guardian ad litem Maryzol Jones, filed a petition to compromise G.C.’s claims on October 12, 2023; hearing set for December 13, 2023.
- The proposed settlement allocates $25,000 from Naphcare and $2,500 from Kings County and Kings County Sheriff’s Department.
- The operative First Amended Complaint asserts multiple claims including: Denial of Medical Care (§1983) by G.C. against Naphcare; Unconstitutional Custom/Policy (§1983) by all plaintiffs; Substantive Due Process (loss of parent/child relationship) (§1983); Title II ADA (§12132) by G.C.; and Wrongful Death (negligence).
- The petition generally alleges emotional and mental injury to G.C. from the loss of his father, but states G.C. received no physician treatment and has "fully recovered."
- The court found the petition deficient under Local Rule 202 for failing to: (a) identify and describe the specific causes of action being settled as to each defendant; (b) explain how the compromise amounts were determined; (c) provide adequate information supporting the claimed full recovery; and (d) describe the proposed method of disbursement to the minor.
- The magistrate judge ordered supplemental briefing by December 8, 2023, warning that if the filing satisfies the Rule 202 requirements the December 13 hearing may be vacated to avoid requiring the minor’s appearance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Local Rule 202 description requirements | Petition provides general facts and states claims for emotional/mental damage from loss of father | No formal contrary briefing in the record; settlement allocations differ by defendant (Naphcare v. County) | Petition insufficient under L.R. 202; supplemental briefing required identifying specific causes and relation to each defendant |
| Adequacy of evidence re: minor's injuries and recovery | Petitioner asserts G.C. received no treatment and has fully recovered | N/A in record; court notes conflicting logic of claiming recovery without treatment | Court will not accept bare assertion of full recovery without supporting information or evidence; supplemental factual support required |
| Fairness and reasonableness of settlement amount | Petitioner argues fairness (implicitly by asserting limited injury and liability issues) | N/A; differing small allocations raise questions about reasonableness relative to claims | Under Robidoux standard, petitioner must show net recovery is fair and reasonable given the claims and comparable recoveries; provide caselaw/comparators and explanation of how amounts were determined |
| Proposed disbursement to minor (blocked account/annuity) | Proposed order suggests deposit to blocked account payable at age 18 but petition omits details | N/A | Court requires a clear description of disbursement method and proposes examples (blocked account, annuity, court-restricted insured account); supplemental briefing must state proposed structure |
Key Cases Cited
- Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (district court must ensure each minor’s net recovery is fair and reasonable compared to similar cases)