Robidoux v. Rosengren
638 F.3d 1177
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs, including minors and guardians ad litem, sue former landlords for housing discrimination at Villa Serrano Apartments under FHA, CA FHEA, and state tort law.
- Plaintiffs allege discrimination from December 2004 to September 2005, including eviction for families with children, bans on outside play, harassment, and false towing of cars, causing various harms to minors.
- Proposed settlement would total $240,000, allocating $135,000 to counsel and distributions to four minor plaintiffs and adults.
- District court, under Rule 17(c), conducted its own inquiry, rejected the proposed 56% attorney-fee allocation as excessive, and reduced fees to $77,166.42 plus $8,500.73 costs, approving a modified settlement.
- Court applied California local-fee norms, finding a typical cap around 25% of the minor’s net recovery, and concluded counsel’s performance was not extraordinary.
- Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the district court should focus on the net recovery to each minor plaintiff independent of the adults’ shares or counsel fees, and remand for evaluation of each minor’s net recovery in light of the case facts and comparable recoveries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper scope of review for minor-settlement fairness? | Robidoux argues net per minor is the sole fairness measure. | Rosengren contends district court may consider overall settlement and attorney-fee distribution. | Net recovery per minor is the focus; district court must assess each minor’s net, not adult shares. |
| Should district court consider the proportion of the total settlement allocated to counsel? | Not essential to minors’ fairness; focus on minors’ net recovery. | Counsel-fee proportion reflects settlement value and should be considered. | Irrelevant to minor fairness; court must evaluate each minor’s net recovery in isolation. |
| What standards govern the court’s abuse-of-discretion review in approving minor settlements? | Court should apply standard that ensures fair treatment for minors. | Standard requires checking for logical, plausible factual support. | The court reviews for abuse of discretion but must apply correct legal rules focusing on minors’ net recoveries. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1978) (district court must independently assess minor settlements to protect their interests)
- Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357 (9th Cir. 1983) (courts must independently evaluate compromises of minor claims)
- In re Heritage Bond Litigation, 546 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review framework for settlements)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc standard for reviewing district court's rulings)