Sandoval et al v. City of National City et al

3:22-cv-01657-GPC-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ESTATE OF BRIAN UMANA, by and
through its successor-in-interest; B.U., a
minor by and through her guardian ad
litem, Roberto Umana, individually and as
successor in interest to Brian Umana;
MARGARITA CARDENAS,
individually,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL CITY, a municipal
corporation, NATIONAL CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, RYAN STINNETT;
EVAN DAVIS; MICHAEL SPORTELLI;
and DOES 1 through 20,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:22-cv-01657-GPC-SBC
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR APPROVAL OF TERMS OF
STRUCTURED ANNUITY FOR THE
COMPROMISE OF MINOR
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
[ECF No. 102]
Case 3:22-cv-01657-GPC-SBC Document 105 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

1
3:22-cv-01657-GPC-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Before the Court is a Petition for Approval of Terms of Structured Annuity for the
Compromise of Minor Plaintiff’s Claims (“Petition”) by Roberto Umana (“Petitioner”), as
guardian ad litem for Plaintiff B.U. (“Minor Plaintiff”). ECF No. 102. Therein, Petitioner
seeks Court approval to purchase a structured annuity using the Minor Plaintiff’s settlement
proceeds. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. 	Court’s Prior Approval of The Minor Plaintiff’s Compromise
On October 8, 2021, after responding to a 911 call, Defendants Stinnett, Sportelli,
and Davis shot and killed Brian Umana (“Decedent”), father of the Minor Plaintiff and son
of Plaintiff Margarita Cardenas. ECF No. 40 at 2, 6. The Minor Plaintiff filed suit, asserting
federal causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state causes of action that included
wrongful death and negligence. See generally ECF No. 40.
On December 11, 2024, with the assistance of Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu, the
parties agreed to settle Plaintiffs’ claims for $1,000,000, with the parties bearing their own
fees and costs. ECF No. 89 at 9, 13. The settlement proceeds were split evenly between the
Minor Plaintiff and Plaintiff Cardenas, with each receiving $500,000. Id. at 9. Petitioner
subsequently sought the Court’s approval to settle Minor Plaintiff’s claims by allocating
$500,000 of the settlement proceeds to Minor Plaintiff, with a net recovery of $308,632.
Id. at 18; Motion Hearing on May 30, 2025. On May 30, 2025, the Court granted
Petitioner’s Motion to approve the compromise of Minor Plaintiff’s claims. ECF No. 95.
In authorizing Petitioner to settle the Minor Plaintiff’s claims, the Court ordered that
the net settlement payment of $308,632 be deposited into an interest-bearing, federally
insured blocked account in the Minor Plaintiff’s name. Id. at 6. The Court further ordered
that no withdrawals of principal or interest from the blocked account occur without a
written order of this Court, or any other court of competent jurisdiction, until the Minor
Plaintiff reached 18 years of age. Id. At the age of eighteen, the depository, without further
order of this Court or any other court of competition jurisdiction, was authorized and
Case 3:22-cv-01657-GPC-SBC Document 105 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

2
3:22-cv-01657-GPC-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
directed to pay by check or draft directly to the former Minor Plaintiff all funds, including
interest, deposited under this Court’s order. Id.
On June 13, 2025, Petitioner placed the Minor Plaintiff’s settlement proceeds into a
blocked account. ECF No. 98 at 3.
B. 	Proposed Structured Annuity
Petitioner now seeks the Court’s approval to withdraw the proceeds from the blocked
account and use them to fund and purchase a structured annuity, with distributions
commencing on the Minor Plaintiff’s eighteenth birthday in 2034. ECF Nos. 102 at 6, 102-
1 at 7 (Ex. A). Specifically, the proposed annuity provides for the following payment
structure:
 	A $2,000.00 monthly payment, guaranteed for 5 years, beginning on her
birthdate in 2034 (at age 18), with the last guaranteed payment in August
2039;
 	A $3,500.00 monthly payment, guaranteed for 4 years and 1 month, beginning
in 2039 (at age 23), with the last guaranteed payment in 2043 (at age 27);
 	A $50,000.00 guaranteed lump sum payment in 2041 (at age 25); and
 	A $379,463.12 guaranteed lump sum payment in 2046 (at age 30).
See ECF Nos. 102-1 at 7 (Ex. A), 102-2 at ¶ 14. The total guaranteed amount that the Minor
Plaintiff will receive after the final payment in 2046 is approximately $702,963.12. ECF
No. 102-1 at 7 (Ex. A). Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company, rated “A+
(Superior)” by A.M. Best, will issue the proposed annuity. ECF No. 102-1 at 9–12.
II. 	DISCUSSION
“District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638
F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, under California law, money may be removed
from a blocked account “only upon authorization of the court, and . . . on conditions the
court determines to be in the best interests of the minor . . . .” Cal. Prob. Code § 3611(b).
Courts permit funds to be withdrawn from a blocked account for a minor’s “academic,
Case 3:22-cv-01657-GPC-SBC Document 105 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

3
3:22-cv-01657-GPC-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
health, and counseling needs or for other purposes if the petitioner could demonstrate a
compelling need for the benefit of the minor.” See Hives v. Cty. of Alameda, No. 15-cv-
02490-DMR, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123057, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2023). Moreover,
courts frequently approve structured settlements like the one proposed here. See, e.g.,
Gonzalez v. Chula Vista Elem. Sch. Dist., No. 21-cv-1314-L-DDL, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
249898, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2024) (order adopting report and recommendation
approving under Rule 17(c) a settlement where “the proceeds will be placed in deferred
annuities such that the total recovery to each Minor Plaintiff is increased”); Alter by &
through Alter v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 21-cv-01709-BLM, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
108869, at *16–17 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 2023) (approving a structured settlement annuity
under Rule 17(c)); Est. of Alvarado v. Tackett, No. 13-cv-1202-LL, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
161351, at *13 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019) (approving a structured settlement annuity under
Rule 17(c)); McCue v. S. Fork Union Sch. Dist., No. 1:10-cv-00233-LJO-MJS, 2012 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 102131, at *24 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2012) (approving a structured settlement
annuity that starts payments when the minor turns 18); E.H. v. Exposition, No. 2:22-cv-
01844-DAD-DB, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219523, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2023)
(approving a minor’s compromise involving a structured annuity with four periodic
payments).
The Court previously approved, as fair and reasonable, the compromise of the Minor
Plaintiff’s claims, including her net recovery and the amounts allocated for costs and
attorney’s fees. ECF No. 95. Based on a review of the Petition, including the supporting
declarations and attachments, the Court further finds that the proposed structured annuity
is reasonable and in the best interests of the Minor Plaintiff.
The structured annuity spreads the distribution of funds over a lengthy period of time
and delays payment of the largest portion until the Minor Plaintiff is 30 years old. This
payment structure more than doubles her net recovery and thus increases her net recovery
substantially. Additionally, it provides the Minor Plaintiff with a reliable stream of future
income that goes directly to her and increases as she matures. A structured annuity also
Case 3:22-cv-01657-GPC-SBC Document 105 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

4
3:22-cv-01657-GPC-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
protects the Minor Plaintiff from the potential loss or waste resulting from a single lump
sum payment at age eighteen. Importantly, all payments are guaranteed and tax-free. See
ECF No. 102-1 at 9. In sum, the proposed annuity will benefit the Minor Plaintiff and
provide meaningful financial security into her adult life.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS the Petition and ORDERS as
follows:
1. 	The Minor Plaintiff’s net settlement payment of $308,632 may be withdrawn
from the blocked account and SHALL be used to fund and purchase for the sole benefit of
Plaintiff B.U., a minor, the structured annuity from Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Co.
outlined in the Petition. See ECF No. 102-1 at 7. Periodic payments to be made by
Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Co. SHALL be made payable and begin being issued
directly to B.U. upon reaching the age of eighteen according to the following payment
schedule (as outlined further in ECF Nos. 102-1 at 7 and 102-2 at ¶ 14):
a. 	$2,000.00 payable monthly, guaranteed for 5 years, starting at age 18 on B.U’s
birthdate in 2034, with the last guaranteed payment by August in 2039;
b. $3,500.00 payable monthly, guaranteed for 4 years and 1 month, starting at
age 23 in 2039, with the last guaranteed payment in 2043;
c. 	$50,000.00 guaranteed lump sum payment at age 25 in 2041; and
d. $379,463.12 guaranteed lump sum payment at age 30 in 2046.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2026
Case 3:22-cv-01657-GPC-SBC Document 105 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5