Douglas James et al v. Valenzuela et al, No. 2:2020cv08689 - Document 16 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF CLAIM OF INCOMPETENT 13 ; AND EX PARTE APPLICATION 15 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Court DENIES Plaintiff's Application for Approval of Compromise of Claim of Incompetent, without preju dice to the filing of a renewed application addressing the deficiencies identified above within thirty days of the date of this order. Should Plaintiff elect not to file a timely renewed application, the Court will reset this matter for trial. (lc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Douglas James et al v. Valenzuela et al Doc. 16 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court Central District of California 9 10 11 12 13 DOUGLAS JAMES, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JORGE REYES,1 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 16 17 Case No. 2:20-cv-08689-ODW (ASx) ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF CLAIM OF INCOMPETENT [13]; AND EX PARTE APPLICATION [15] OFFICER VALENZUELA; and CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Defendants. 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Plaintiff Douglas James is a sixty-three year old man with dementia who was 21 lost for six weeks after Defendant California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) officers 22 allegedly left him on the side of the road. An agreement has been reached and 23 Plaintiff’s representatives now seek court approval to compromise Plaintiff’s claims. 24 (Appl. for Approval of Compromise of Claim of Incompetent (“Application” or 25 “Appl.”), ECF Nos. 13, 15.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES 26 Plaintiff’s Application without prejudice. 27 28 1 As discussed below, Reyes has not sought from this Court, nor has this Court granted him, appointment as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Douglas James. Dockets.Justia.com II. 1 2 BACKGROUND Plaintiff suffers from dementia. (See Notice of Removal (“NOR”) Ex. A 3 (“Compl.”) ¶ 16, ECF No. 1-1; Decl. of Mark Ravis (“Ravis Decl.”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 13.) 4 He lives with his twin brother, Donald James, who cares for him. (Appl. 2.) On 5 November 5, 2019, Donald was driving with Plaintiff and the family dog, Teddy Bear, 6 when two CHP officers, one of whom was Officer Valenzuela (#21756), pulled them 7 over in Torrance, California. (Compl. ¶ 16.) Officer Valenzuela arrested Donald for 8 driving while intoxicated and impounded the vehicle. (Id.) Donald explained to the 9 officers that Plaintiff has dementia and that he and Teddy Bear would not be able to 10 find their way home. (Id.) The officers promised to drive Plaintiff and Teddy Bear 11 home but instead dropped them off a few blocks from the arrest. (Id.) 12 Teddy Bear was found in Wilmington about two weeks later; Plaintiff remained 13 lost for six weeks. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff was found on December 21, 2019, when 14 he was arrested for vagrancy in Pasadena, California. (Appl. 2; Ravis Decl. ¶ 4.) 15 During the six weeks he was lost, he “wandered the streets, rode buses, slept wherever 16 he could, [and] scavenged for food.” (Compl. ¶ 17.) He alleges that he suffered 17 severe mental anguish from fear that he would never be found and fear about his 18 ability to survive. (Id. ¶ 18.) 19 In light of Plaintiff’s dementia, Plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Ravis, asked Jorge 20 Reyes Esq., to act as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) in this action. (Ravis 21 Decl. ¶ 3.) On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff, by and through Reyes, filed a civil action in 22 state court against Defendants CHP and Officer Valenzuela for gross negligence and 23 violation of Eighth Amendment (right to be free from harm in police custody) under 24 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl.) Reyes applied to the state court for appointment as 25 Plaintiff’s GAL, but the CHP removed the action to this Court on September 22, 2020, 26 before the state court acted on the application. (See NOR, Ex. B, ECF No. 1-2.) 27 On November 16, 2020, “[P]laintiff Douglas James by and through his [GAL] 28 Jorge Reyes agreed to compromise [P]laintiff’s claim[s]” in a settlement. (Appl. 1.) 2 1 In exchange for Plaintiff’s release of all claims and dismissal of all Defendants with 2 prejudice, the CHP will pay Plaintiff $14,000, inclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs; 3 Officer Valenzuela, who has not been served, will settle for a waiver of costs. 4 (Appl. 3.) Attorney Ravis seeks litigation expenses of $720 and fees of 25%, or 5 $3320. (Ravis Decl. ¶ 9.) Under the settlement, the remaining $9,960 after fees and 6 expenses would be deposited in a blocked account for Plaintiff, to be managed 7 pursuant to Court order by Plaintiff’s older sister, Veneda James, who has managed 8 Plaintiff’s finances for the past two years. (Appl. 4; Decl. of Veneda James ¶¶ 4–5, 9 ECF No. 13.) Attorneys Ravis and Reyes both recommend approval of the settlement, 10 although Reyes concedes that he has never met Plaintiff. (Ravis Decl. ¶ 8; Decl. of 11 Jorge Reyes ¶ 2, ECF No. 13.) 12 III. LEGAL STANDARD 13 District courts have a special duty to protect the interests of incompetent or 14 minor plaintiffs. See Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); 15 Smith v. City of Stockton, 185 F. Supp. 3d 1242, 1243–45 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (applying 16 Robidoux to the interests of a developmentally delayed adult); Banuelos v. City of San 17 Bernardino, EDCV 13-736-GW (DTBx), 2018 WL 6131190, at *2 n.2 (C.D. Cal. 18 Apr. 26, 2018) (applying Robidoux to the interests of an incompetent adult). 19 Accordingly, “[n]o claim in any action involving a minor or incompetent person shall 20 be settled, compromised, or dismissed without leave of the Court embodied in an 21 order, judgment, or decree.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 17-1.2; Banuelos, 2018 WL 6131190, 22 at *2. “[A] court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or 23 settlement of a[n incompetent person]’s claims to assure itself that the [incompetent 24 person]’s interests are protected, even if the settlement has been recommended or 25 negotiated by the . . . guardian ad litem.” 26 (quoting Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also 27 Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181. 28 3 Banuelos, 2018 WL 6131190, at *2 1 IV. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff’s Application fails for at least three reasons. 3 First, where an incompetent person lacks a duly appointed representative such 4 as a conservator, the court “must appoint a [GAL]—or issue another appropriate 5 order—to protect a minor or incompetent person[’s]” interests in prosecuting an 6 action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2); Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181. “When the appointment 7 of a [GAL] is required” by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 17(c)(2), a 8 “suitable person must file a Petition for the Appointment of a [GAL] at the time of the 9 minor’s or incompetent person’s first appearance.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 17-1.1. Here, no 10 Petition for the Appointment of a GAL has been filed with this Court, and the state 11 court did not act on Reyes’s application before the case was removed. Therefore, 12 Reyes has not been appointed GAL for Plaintiff and may not prosecute this action on 13 Plaintiff’s behalf without court-appointment. 14 Second, “[i]nsofar as practicable, hearings on petitions to settle, compromise, or 15 dismiss a claim in an action involving a minor or incompetent person shall conform to 16 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 372 and California Rule of Court 3.1384.” 17 L.R. 17-1.3. Under California Rule of Court 3.1384, a petition to compromise an 18 incompetent person’s claim “must comply with [California Rules of Court] 7.950 or 19 7950.5, 7.951, and 7.952.” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1384. These rules in turn 20 require that the application be verified and include form MC-350 or MC-350EX, 21 id. 7.950, the plaintiff’s attorney must disclose his or her interest in the matter, 22 id. 7.951, and a hearing must be held or good cause shown to dispense with the 23 plaintiff’s personal appearance, id. 7.952. Here, Plaintiff has not complied with any of 24 these procedural requirements: the Application is not verified, does not attach either 25 form MC-350 or MC-350EX or otherwise provide the information therein, and does 26 not include the information required by California Rules of Court 7.950, 7.951, and 27 7.952. Plaintiff does not even submit a copy of the settlement agreement, despite 28 indicating that it is attached. (Appl. 2 (inaccurately stating, “The stipulated settlement 4 C.D. Cal. 1 is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1”); see also id. at 3.) Therefore, the Application 2 does not satisfy the procedural requirements for approval. 3 Finally, in cases involving the settlement of an incompetent person’s claim, 4 courts “review . . . whether the net amount distributed to each [incompetent] plaintiff 5 in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the [plaintiff]’s 6 specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182 (citing 7 Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1978)); Smith, 185 F. Supp. 3d 8 at 1243 (quoting Robidoux, 638 F.3d 1181–82). Here, Plaintiff provides only minimal 9 facts and asserts in a conclusory fashion that the compromise is fair and reasonable 10 because: Plaintiff “did not appear to have suffered any physical or articulated mental 11 damages from being missing for nearly six weeks”; Defendant Valenzuela may have 12 “potential defenses of immunity”; and the costs incurred in this litigation remain low. 13 (Appl. 4.) Further, Plaintiff provides no comparison to similar cases; “[f]or the Court 14 to consider the settlement reasonable, Plaintiff must point to some cases (even if not 15 identical, but at least similar in some way) that support a settlement amount close to 16 what is proposed here.” Banuelos, 2018 WL 6131190, at *3. Without providing more 17 information concerning settlement amounts in similar cases and the reasons why this 18 case was settled for $14,000 in view of the egregious conduct alleged, the Court 19 cannot approve the proposed compromise. See id. at *4. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 V. 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Application for 3 Approval of Compromise of Claim of Incompetent, without prejudice to the filing of 4 a renewed application addressing the deficiencies identified above within thirty days 5 of the date of this order. (ECF Nos. 13, 15.) Should Plaintiff elect not to file a timely 6 renewed application, the Court will reset this matter for trial. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. April 21, 2021 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
