Gonzalez et al v. United States of America et al
Filing
67
ORDER for supplemental briefing. Petitioner shall submit a supplemental brief that conforms with this order on or before November 29, 2011; Any responses to the supplemental brief may be filed by any other party on or before December 2, 2011; the Hearing set for 11/30/2011, is VACATED and RESET to 12/7/2011, at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7 (SKO) before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/16/2011. (Timken, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
MIGUEL GONZALEZ, JR., a minor, by and
through his guardian ad litem, Maria
Gonzalez, MARIA GONZALEZ and
MIGUEL GONZALEZ,
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00509-LJO-SKO
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING
13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
16
17
Defendants.
/
18
19
I.
INTRODUCTION
20
On November 2, 2011, Maria Gonzales ("Petitioner"), as the court-appointed guardian ad
21
litem of the named minor, Plaintiff Miguel Gonzalez, Jr. ("Miguel"), filed a petition to approve the
22
proposed settlement between Miguel and the United States of America ("United States"). On
23
November 10, 2011, Defendant County of Kern, erroneously sued in the name of its agency, Kern
24
Medical Center, filed a statement of non-opposition to the petition for approval of the proposed
25
settlement between Miguel and the United States. (Doc. 66.)
26
After reviewing the petition, the Court finds that a supplemental brief is necessary to
27
adequately consider the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed settlement. The Petitioner is
28
DIRECTED to file a supplemental brief on or before November 29, 2011, as set forth below. Any
1
response to the supplemental brief that any party elects to file may be submitted on or before
2
December 2, 2011. The hearing on the Petition is RESET to December 7, 2011, in Courtroom 7,
3
at 9:30 a.m.
4
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5
This case was originally filed on February 8, 2008, in Kern County Superior Court by
6
Plaintiffs Miguel Gonzalez, Jr., Maria Gonzalez, and Miguel Gonzalez, Sr. (collectively, "Plaintiffs")
7
against Kern Medical Center, Clinica Sierra Vista, Luis Lopez, M.D., Deng Fong, M.D., and Gurvir
8
Khurana, M.D. Petitioner was appointed guardian ad litem for Miguel. According to Petitioner, it
9
was thereafter discovered that Defendant Clinica Sierra Vista and Defendant Luis Lopez, M.D., were
10
deemed employees of the Public Health Services pursuant to the provisions of the Federally
11
Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. § 233 and therefore subject to the
12
Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680. (Doc. 64, 2:15-18.)
13
On March 18, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this Court pursuant to the FTCA against
14
the United States and simultaneously proceeded in state court against the remaining defendants. On
15
September 17, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming the state-court defendants,
16
Kern Medical Center and Gurvir Khurana, M.D.,1 in this action and dismissed the state-court action
17
in its entirety. (See Doc. 64, 2:18-24.)
18
Plaintiffs' claims arise from the events occurring on the date of Miguel's birth, August 1,
19
2007, at the Kern Medical Center. Miguel's birth resulted in a prolonged period of head entrapment
20
and hypoxia and acidosis. Upon birth, Miguel required full resuscitation and was admitted to the
21
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. He was hospitalized for 41 days, and was later diagnosed with global
22
developmental delay and cerebral palsy. Currently, Miguel is able to walk, but with poor balance.
23
(Doc. 64, 4:23.) He is severely mentally impaired, and he is not able to speak. He will require
24
assistance in all activities of daily living throughout his life. (Doc. 64, 4:23-25.)
25
26
27
28
1
Defendant Deng Fong, M.D. was not named in Plaintiffs' amended complaint. (See Doc. 23.)
2
1
III.
DISCUSSION
2
The "Petition for Compromise of the Claim of Minor Miguel Gonzalez" has two essential
3
parts. Petitioner, Miguel's guardian ad litem, requests that the settlement be approved and that, as
4
part of the approval, the Court issue an order establishing a special needs trust for Miguel such that
5
certain settlement proceeds may be paid into the trust. Thus, the two components of the petition are
6
considered below.
7
A.
The Settlement Between Minor Miguel Gonzalez, Jr. and the United States
8
As a derivative of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), district courts have a special duty
9
to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors. Rule 17(c) provides, in pertinent part, that a
10
district court "must appoint a guardian ad litem – or issue another appropriate order – to protect a
11
minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). In the
12
context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, the district court's special duty
13
requires it to "'conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests
14
of the minor.'" Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dacanay v.
15
Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)).
16
In Robidoux, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit provided specific
17
guidance "on how to conduct this independent inquiry." Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181. While the
18
Ninth Circuit noted that district courts have typically applied state law and the local rules governing
19
the award of attorney's fees to make the reasonableness and fairness determination, the court held
20
that "this approach places an undue emphasis on the amount of attorney's fees provided for in a
21
settlement, instead of focusing on the net recovery of the minor plaintiffs under the proposed
22
agreement." Id. The Ninth Circuit held that, instead, district courts should "limit the scope of their
23
review to the question whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement
24
is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor's specific claim, and recovery in
25
similar cases." Id. at 1181-82. Further, fairness of each minor plaintiff's net recovery should be
26
evaluated "without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-
27
plaintiffs or plaintiffs' counsel – whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard."
28
Id. at 1182 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078).
3
1
The Eastern District of California has issued Local Rules ("L.R.") that govern the procedure
2
for submitting requests for approval of a proposed settlement or compromise of a minor. In actions
3
in which a minor is represented by an appointed representative where the United States courts have
4
exclusive jurisdiction, "the motion for approval of a proposed settlement or compromise shall be
5
filed and calendared pursuant to L.R. 230." L.R. 202(b)(2); see also L.R. 202(b)(1).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Local Rule 202(b)(2) further provides that an application for approval of a settlement of a
minor
shall disclose, among other things, the age and sex of the minor or incompetent, the
nature of the causes of action to be settled or compromised, the facts and
circumstances out of which the causes of action arose, including the time, place and
persons involved, the manner in which the compromise amount or other
consideration was determined, including such additional information as may be
required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement or
compromise, and, if a personal injury claim, the nature and extent of the injury with
sufficient particularity to inform the Court whether the injury is temporary or
permanent. If reports of physicians or other similar experts have been prepared, such
reports shall be provided to the Court. The Court may also require the filing of
experts' reports when none [has] previously been prepared or additional experts'
reports if appropriate under the circumstances . . . .
14
15
The petition submitted tracks the language of the California Judicial Council form MC-350,
16
which contains the "Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim or Pending Action or
17
Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability" that is applicable in
18
state-court proceedings. The petition filed with the Court offers a comprehensive overview of the
19
terms of the settlement and sets forth most of the information necessary to consider approval of the
20
settlement pursuant to both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Eastern District of
21
California's Local Rules. It does not, however, address fully the specific issues that the Ninth Circuit
22
recently directed federal district courts to examine when determining whether to approve a settlement
23
involving a minor's claims. Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181-82.
24
In light of Robidoux, Petitioner is directed to submit a supplemental brief addressing why
25
Miguel's net recovery under the settlement is fair and reasonable "in light of the facts of the case, the
26
minor's specific claim, and recovery in similar cases." Id. In providing the supplemental statement,
27
Petitioner should clearly set forth Miguel's net recovery. While the petition labels $1,610,000.00 as
28
the "Net Amount of Settlement to Miguel" (Doc. 64, 6:11), this figure appears to represent the gross
4
1
amount of the settlement to Miguel. The Ninth Circuit's instruction to district courts in Robidoux
2
was to consider the "net recovery" to the minor. 638 F.3d at 1181-82. To that end, Petitioner should
3
set forth the items included in Miguel's "net recovery," which presumably would exclude costs and
4
fees. The Court notes that, in Mr. Donahue's declaration, he states that the total amount to Miguel
5
is $1,003,402.28. (Doc. 64, p. 17, ¶ 12.) Petitioner should affirmatively indicate whether this
6
amount represents Miguel's "net recovery" for purposes of considering whether that amount is fair
7
and reasonable.
8
Further, Petitioner should specifically discuss the facts underpinning the minor's claim with
9
respect to the United States. Finally, Petitioner should address how the compromise amount was
10
determined in mediation. In other words, Petitioner should explain why the compromise amount was
11
considered adequate to settle Miguel's claim against the United States – e.g., whether recovery in
12
similar cases guided the parties in reaching the proposed compromise amount.
13
B.
The Establishment of a Special Needs Trust for the Benefit of Miguel
14
1.
15
Pursuant to the California Probate Code, "[i]f a court makes an order under Section 3602 or
16
3611 that money of a minor or person with a disability be paid to a special needs trust, the terms of
17
the trust shall be reviewed and approved by the court and shall satisfy the requirements of this
18
section." Cal. Prob. Code § 3604(a)(1). Section 3604(b) provides that
19
Requirements of Probate Code § 3406(b)
[a] special needs trust may be established and continued under this section only if the
court determines all of the following:
20
21
(1) That the minor or person with a disability has a disability that substantially
impairs the individual's ability to provide for the individual's own care or custody and
constitutes a substantial handicap.
22
23
24
(2) That the minor or person with a disability is likely to have special needs that will
not be met without the trust.
25
(3) That money to be paid to the trust does not exceed the amount that appears
reasonably necessary to meet the special needs of the minor or person with a
disability.
26
Cal. Prob. Code § 3604(b)(1)-(3). The petition and the exhibits attached to the declaration of Mr.
27
Donahue, Esq. set forth Miguel's disability, indicate that it substantially impairs his ability to provide
28
for his own care, and establish that his disability constitutes a substantial handicap.
5
1
However, the petition does not expressly address the second and third requirements under
2
Section 3604(b). To that extent, Petitioner should indicate in the supplemental brief what types of
3
special needs she anticipates will not be met without the trust and how Petitioner has met the
4
requirement that the funds in the trust will not exceed the amount reasonably necessary to meet
5
Miguel's special needs.2
6
2.
7
Probate Code Section 3604(d) requires that a
8
10
court order under Section 3602 or 3611 for payment of money to a special needs trust
shall include a provision that all statutory liens in favor of the State Department of
Health Services, the State Department of Mental Health, the State Department of
Developmental Services, and any county or city and county in this state shall be
satisfied first.
11
Petitioner asserts that Medi-Cal has provided medical services to Miguel having a value of
12
$145,213.00, but Medi-Cal has agreed to a 25% reduction to $108,909.75. (Doc. 64, 7:6-14;12:22-
13
27.) The amount of $108,909.75 will be paid to the Department of Health Care Services by Miguel's
14
counsel out of the gross proceeds of the settlement attributable to Miguel. The remaining 25%
15
($36,303.25) will be paid to counsel as the legal fees associated with obtaining the recovery out of
16
which Medi-Cal is being paid. (Doc. 64, 12:22-27.)
9
Requirement of Probate Code § 3604(d)
17
However, an invoice from the Department of Health Care Services issued on October 11,
18
2011, indicates that "[t]he Department will accept $97,830.85 based on a settlement amount of
19
$1,750,000.00, attorney's fees of $308,051.39, and litigation costs of $133,514.80. Due to the
20
possibility of additional settlements, this reimbursement amount will only be considered as partial
21
settlement of the Medi-Cal lien." (Doc. 64.5, p. 1.) Although Petitioner cites this invoice in
22
discussing the Medi-Cal lien, the discrepancy remains unexplained. In the supplemental brief,
23
Petitioner should clarify the settlement amount of the Medi-Cal lien and indicate whether or not that
24
amount is full satisfaction of the lien.
25
///
26
27
For example, it may be that Miguel's life expectancy impacts the amount of the money that
will be required for his special needs.
2
28
6
1
3.
2
The proposed settlement includes payment for Miguel's claim in the amount of
3
$1,610,000.00, which includes the purchase of an annuity that will provide periodic payments to a
4
special needs trust in the amount of $1,920.00 per month for Miguel's lifetime, guaranteed for 30
5
years. (Doc. 64, 6:12-16.) The proposed special needs trust that Petitioner filed in support of the
6
petition, however, provides that the periodic payments from the annuity to the trust amount to
7
$1,877.40 per month. (Doc. 64-8, p. 1.) This discrepancy may be easily explained, but it is not clear
8
on the face of the documents why the petition indicates that the periodic payments from the annuity
9
to the trust will amount to $1,920.00 per month, yet the proposed special needs trust recites that the
10
periodic payments from the annuity to the trust will amount to $1,877.40 per month. In the
11
supplemental brief, Petitioner shall explain this discrepancy and file an amended proposed trust
12
document, if necessary.
The Periodic Annuity Payment to the Trust
13
IV.
CONCLUSION
14
In sum, Petitioner should address the following in the supplemental brief:
15
a.
Affirmatively indicate Miguel's net recovery under the settlement;
16
b.
Address why Miguel's net recovery is fair and reasonable in light of: (1) the facts of
17
18
the case, (2) Miguel's specific claim, and (3) recovery in similar cases;
c.
19
Specifically discuss the facts underpinning Miguel's claim with respect to the United
States;
20
d.
Address how the compromise amount was determined to be adequate by the parties;
21
e.
Address the requirements of Probate Code Sections 3604(b)(2)-(3);
22
f.
Clarify the settlement amount of the Medi-Cal lien and indicate whether or not this
23
24
25
amount is full satisfaction of the lien; and
g.
Clarify the amount of the periodic payments that will be made from the annuity to the
trust, filing amended documents as necessary.
26
To allow for supplemental briefing, the hearing set for November 30, 2011, shall be reset to
27
December 7, 2011. While the Local Rule applicable to the petition states that the representative
28
compromising the claim as well as the minor shall be in attendance at the hearing (L.R. 202(d)),
7
1
Petitioner may set forth reasons amounting to good cause in the supplemental brief establishing why
2
the personal appearance of Petitioner and Miguel, the minor, should be excused.
3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4
1.
5
Petitioner submit a supplemental brief that conforms with this order on or before
November 29, 2011;
6
2.
7
Any responses to the supplemental brief may be filed by any other party on or before
December 2, 2011;
8
3.
9
The hearing set for November 30, 2011, is VACATED and RESET to December 7,
2011, in Courtroom 7, at 9:30 a.m.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated:
ie14hj
November 16, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
