Vasquez v. County of Stanislaus, 1:19-cv-01610

Background

Plaintiffs filed civil rights and related state-law claims arising from a September 27, 2018 traffic stop; minor J.V. (a 10‑year‑old boy) witnessed excessive force against his father and claims negligent infliction of emotional distress (no physical or permanent injuries alleged).
Operative complaint alleges federal § 1983 claims and multiple state‑law claims; guardian ad litem Jessica Santos was appointed for J.V.
Parties reached a global $50,000 settlement: $40,000 to Vasquez and $10,000 to J.V.; J.V.’s recovery is subject to a 25% attorney fee deduction leaving a $7,500 net payment.
Plaintiffs petitioned the court to approve the minor’s compromise under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) and Local Rule 202; the court ordered supplemental briefing on several issues (age/sex, specific claims settled, permanency, distribution, costs, supporting caselaw).
Counsel’s supplemental declaration stated J.V. suffered temporary emotional distress, is improving, and has no diagnosis; legal costs ($1,500) were allocated to the adult plaintiff; funds for J.V. will be placed in a blocked account until age 18.
The magistrate judge admonished counsel for failing to supply requested caselaw but declined to impose sanctions and recommended approving the compromise as fair and reasonable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should approve the minor‑compromise under FRCP 17(c) and Local Rule 202 applying Robidoux	J.V. (through guardian and counsel) contends the $10,000 allocation (net $7,500 after fees) is a fair compromise of his emotional‑distress claim and in his best interests	Defendants did not oppose approval of the minor’s compromise	Approved: Court applied Robidoux standard and recommended the settlement be approved as fair and reasonable
Whether the court should focus on net recovery to the minor rather than attorneys’ fees	J.V. and counsel emphasized the $7,500 net to the minor and argued certainty outweighs litigation risk	No opposition; fees were treated as an independent matter tied to counsel’s retainer	Held: Court evaluated net recovery per Robidoux and found $7,500 fair; 25% fee is the customary benchmark
Adequacy of disclosures and supplemental briefing (including failure to provide caselaw)	Plaintiffs provided required information in petition and supplement (age, nature of injury, distribution plan) though omitted caselaw support	N/A (no opposing arguments)	Held: Court found submissions sufficient under Local Rule 202 but admonished counsel for noncompliance and declined sanctions in interest of expedition
Distribution mechanics and allocation of costs	Plaintiffs proposed a blocked account for J.V. until age 18 and allocated $1,500 of costs to adult Vasquez	N/A	Held: Approved blocked‑account distribution and accepted allocation of costs to adult plaintiff as preserving minor’s net recovery

Key Cases Cited

Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (district courts must ensure minor’s net recovery is fair and reasonable; focus review on minor’s net recovery rather than fee proportions)
Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1978) (district court’s duty to scrutinize settlements involving minors)
Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to timely object to magistrate judge recommendations may waive appellate rights)
Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1991) (same waiver principle for failure to object to magistrate findings)