E.P.E. et al v. United States of America

1
24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
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
E.P.E. on her own behalf and on
behalf of her minor child, E.E.B.P. et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
Case No.: 24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FOR ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR
(1) APPROVAL OF THE
SETTLEMENT MINORS’ CLAIMS
AND (2) TERMS OF TRUST FOR
MINOR PLAINTIFFS
[Dkt. Nos. 52 and 53]
Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ December 12, 2025 Ex Parte Petition
for Approval of Terms of Trust for Minor Plaintiffs [Dkt. No. 52 (“TOT Pet.”)] and
December 12, 2025 Petition to Approve the Settlement of Minors’ Claims [Dkt. No.
53 (“MC Pet.”)]. Having considered the Petitions and the supporting exhibits, and
the applicable law, and for the reasons stated below, the Court RECOMMENDS
that District Judge Schopler GRANT the Petitions as set forth below.
///
///
///
Case 3:24-cv-00312-AGS-MSB Document 57 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 10

2
24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
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
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On February 19, 2024, Plaintiffs initiated this litigation under the Federal Tort
Claims Act “to seek compensation for the harm and losses they suffered as the
result of the tortious conduct committed by U.S. Border Patrol agents.” Dkt. No. 1
at 3-4. 	Plaintiffs, noncitizens E.P.E., E.C.M.U., H.S.C.G., and S.S.F., were
removed from the United States and sent to Tijuana, Mexico shortly after giving
birth to their one and two day old infants who were also expelled, Plaintiffs and
United States Citizens, E.E.B.P., E.M.M., B.Y.C.G., and A.L.T.J.P. 	Id. at 2.
Plaintiffs allege that they were expelled from the United States “to extremely
dangerous and unhealthy conditions in Tijuana, Mexico, by agents of the U.S.
Border Patrol” without regard to the United States’ citizenship of the infants and
the mothers’ fears of persecution and torture in Mexico. 	Id.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 28, 2025, the Court held an Early Neutral Evaluation conference
during 	which 	Plaintiffs 	E.C.M.U., 	E.M.M., 	H.S.C.G., 	B.Y.C.G., 	S.S.F., 	and
A.L.T.J.P. settled the case. 	Dkt. No. 37. 	Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg
ordered the parties to file a Petition to Approve the Minors’ Compromise by August
28, 2025. Dkt. No. 37
On August 22, 2025, Judge Berg granted the parties’ joint motion to continue
the August 28, 2025 deadline for filing a Petition to Approve Minors’ Compromise
to September 28, 2025. Dkt. No. 42.
On August 26, 2025, Magistrate Judge Leshner was assigned to the case
for purposes of the Minors’ Compromise. Dkt. No. 43.
On September 26, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion to Cancel the
September 29, 2025 Deadline for Submission of the Petition to Approve the
Minors’ Compromise. Dkt. No. 45.
On September 29, 2025, the Court Granted in Part Plaintiffs’ motion. 	Dkt.
No. 47. 	The Court continued the deadline for filing a Petition to Approve the
Case 3:24-cv-00312-AGS-MSB Document 57 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 10

3
24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
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
Minors’ Compromise to October 31, 2025, and ordered the parties to file a Joint
Status Report explaining any remaining impediments to meeting the October 31,
2025 deadline by October 13, 2025. 	Id.
On October 15, 2025, the Court issued a minute order vacating the deadlines
set in Dkt. No. 46 in light of General Order No. 7661 and ordered the parties to
“notify the Court within five days of normal operations resuming so that the
deadlines can be reset.” Dkt. No. 47.
On November 25, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Notice of General Order No.
766-A and Motion to Reset Deadline for Submission of the Petition to Approve the
Minors’ Compromise. Dkt. No. 49. On November 26, 2025, the Court granted the
parties’ motion and continued the deadline for filing a Petition to Approve the
Minors’ Compromise to December 12, 2025. Dkt. No. 51.
On December 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Petition for Approval of
Terms of Trust for Minor Plaintiffs and a Petition to Approve the Settlement of
Minors’ Claims. TOT Pet.; MC Pet.
On January 13, 2026, the Court issued an Order Requesting Supplemental
Briefing regarding the fairness of the minor plaintiffs’ proposed settlement in
comparison to recoveries in similar cases. 	Dkt. No. 55. 	Plaintiffs provided the
supplemental briefing on January 20, 2026. Dkt. No. 56.
LEGAL STANDARDS
District courts have a duty to safeguard the interests of minors in litigation.
See Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) (noting “the
court in which a minor’s claims are being litigated has a duty to protect the minor’s
1 Available on the Court’s website.
Case 3:24-cv-00312-AGS-MSB Document 57 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 10

4
24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
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
interests”).2 When parties settle an action involving a minor litigant, the Court must
“conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best
interests of the minor.” 	Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir.
2011); 	see also 	CivLR 17.1(a) (requiring the Court to review any proposed
settlement of a minor’s claims). For claims arising under federal law, the scope of
the Court’s inquiry should be limited to “the question whether the net amount
distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light
of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.”
Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. 	In assessing the fairness of the minor plaintiff’s net
recovery, the Court cannot consider the “proportion of the total settlement value
designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district
court has no special duty to safeguard.” 	Id. 	The Court must independently
evaluate the fairness of the settlement “even if [it] has been recommended or
negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem.” 	Salmeron, 724 F.2d at
1363
PETITION TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF MINORS’ CLAIMS
A. The Proposed Settlement Terms and Distribution
As stated in the Petitions, Plaintiff E.C.M.U. and her daughter Plaintiff E.M.M.,
Plaintiff H.S.C.G. and her son Plaintiff B.Y.C.G., and Plaintiff S.S.F. and her
daughter A.L.T.J.P. have each agreed to settle their claims for $100,000. MC Pet.
at 4-5. Plaintiff E.P.E. and her daughter E.E.B.P. have agreed to settle their claims
for $135,000. 	Id. at 5. 	Each mother Plaintiff intends to split her settlement
proceeds evenly with her child so that each minor Plaintiff will receive $50,000 or
$67,5000 for E.E.B.P. TOT Pet. at 4. Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks an award of fifteen
2 Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, citations,
footnotes, and parallel reporter citations are omitted from citations.
Case 3:24-cv-00312-AGS-MSB Document 57 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 10

5
24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
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
percent of the minor Plaintiffs’ settlement for a total of $62,250 in attorneys’ fees
and is not seeking reimbursement for litigation costs. 	Id. at 4-5. 	There are no
outstanding medical or other expenses to be paid or reimbursed from settlement
proceeds. 	Id. at 5. 	After payment of the fees, minor Plaintiffs E.M.M., B.Y.C.G.,
and A.L.T.J.P. will receive a settlement payment in the amount of $42,500 and
minor Plaintiff E.E.B.P. will receive a settlement payment in the amount of $56,875.
MC Id. at 5-6.
The money will be placed into a pooled minor’s trust administered by a fiduciary
trustee from the nonprofit Legacy Enhancement Trust. 	Id. at 5, Exh. B. The trust
will terminate when each minor turns eighteen years old. Id. at 6. Prior to that, the
trustee will make distributions from the trust “for the use and benefit of the minor
for expenses which are not provided by or available from another source.” Id. Any
remaining funds that exist after the trust terminates will be distributed to each minor
Plaintiff in full. Id. There is an initial $1,500 enrollment fee (per minor) for the trust
and an annual administrative fee of 1.95%. 	Id. at 6, Exhs. C and D.
B. The Settlement is Reasonable and in the Best Interests of E.E.B.P.,
E.M.M., B.Y.C.G., and A.L.T.J.P.
The Court has conducted an independent review of the proposed settlement
and finds that E.E.B.P., E.M.M., B.Y.C.G., and A.L.T.J.P.’s settlement is fair,
reasonable, and in their best interests. As a result of their experiences, the minors
endured “inadequate access to food, proper shelter, and basic necessities[;]”
however, none of the minors have outstanding medical or other expenses to be
paid. 	TOT Pet. at 5. 	E.E.B.P., E.M.M., B.Y.C.G., and A.L.T.J.P. are entitled to
recover for the harm they suffered, and the Court finds the net recovery discussed
above is reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained.
The Ninth Circuit requires the Court to consider the fairness of a minor
plaintiff’s settlement in comparison to recoveries in similar cases. 	Robidoux, 638
F.3d at 1182. 	Plaintiffs identify several cases involving non-citizen minors who
Case 3:24-cv-00312-AGS-MSB Document 57 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 10

6
24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
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
sought damages pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act due to trauma sustained
after being forcibly separated from their parents by CBP agents. Dkt. No. 56 at 3-
5. Plaintiffs also identify several cases where minors and adults sought damages
under 	the 	Federal 	Tort 	Claims 	Act 	for 	allegedly 	unlawful 	detention 	and
deportation. 	Id. at 5-7. The proposed settlements “fall in the middle of a range of
settlement amounts” from the two sets of cases. 	Id. at 2. The Court finds that the
settlement amount for the minor Plaintiffs is consistent with other petitions of
minor’s compromise in cases asserting similar claims and damages. See Dkt. No.
56 at 3-7. Accordingly, the Court finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable.
Furthermore, the settlement was the result of negotiations between the
parties. Throughout the negotiations, all parties were represented by counsel, who
undoubtedly were well-informed as to the strengths and weaknesses of their
respective positions. 	The settlement also “allows for the certainty of recovery”
while eliminating the “burden, expense, and uncertainty of taking the case to trial.”
Doe v. Lincoln Mil. Prop. Mgmt. LP, No. 3:20-cv-00224-GPC-AHG, 2020 WL
5587488, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2020). 	In sum, the settlement allows the
Plaintiffs to avoid the costs, risks, and time commitment of pursuing the case
through discovery and trial, while providing fair and prompt compensation for the
harm suffered. 	For the above reasons, the Court finds that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and in E.E.B.P., E.M.M., B.Y.C.G., and A.L.T.J.P.’s best interests.
C. Attorney’s Fees and Litigation Costs
In addition to assessing whether the settlement is fair and reasonable, the Court
must also approve the attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid for representation of a
minor. In this District and elsewhere in the Ninth Circuit, where counsel represents
a minor on a contingency fee basis, attorneys’ fees are generally limited to 25
percent of the gross recovery. See Doe, 2020 WL 5587488, at *6; see also D.C.
by & through Murphy v. Modesto City Sch., No. 1:22-CV-01481-HBK, 2023 WL
6060044, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2023) (noting the 25 percent “benchmark” for
Case 3:24-cv-00312-AGS-MSB Document 57 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 10

7
24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
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
contingency fees for representation of minors). Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel requests
fifteen 	percent 	of 	the 	settlement 	amount 	($65,250) 	and 	will 	not 	seek
reimbursement for litigation costs. MC Pet. at 6; TOT Pet. at 4-5.
The Court has considered the result obtained, the risk assumed, and the fact
that the requested fees are below the historical benchmark of 25 percent. 	Under
the facts and circumstances of this action, the Court finds the requested attorneys’
fees are reasonable.
PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF TERMS OF TRUST FOR MINOR
PLAINTIFFS
This District’s Civil Local Rules require that “[m]oney or property recovered by
a minor or incompetent California resident by settlement or judgment must be paid
and disbursed in accordance with California Probate Code Section 3600, et seq.”
CivLR 17.1(b)(1); see also Alter by & through Alter v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 21-
CV-01709-BLM, 2023 WL 4166096, at *5–6 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 2023) (“any money
recovered by an incompetent who resides in California must be disbursed in
accordance with the California Probate Code [under the Local Rules], regardless
of whether the incompetent’s claims arise under state or federal law”). 	As is
relevant here, California Probate Code section 3611 provides that in entering
judgment for a minor or incompetent, the Court should specify the method of
distribution, which may include and order
that the remaining balance of the money and other property be paid or
delivered to the trustee of a trust which is created by, or approved of,
in the order or judgment referred to in Section 3600. This trust shall be
revocable by the minor upon attaining the age of 18 years, and shall
contain other terms and conditions, including, but not limited to, terms
and conditions concerning trustee's accounts and trustee's bond, as
the court determines to be necessary to protect the minor's interests.
Cal. Prob. Code § 3611(g).
The settlement provides for each minor’s settlement money to be placed in a
pooled minor’s trust administered by the Legacy Enhancement Trust. TOT Pet. at
Case 3:24-cv-00312-AGS-MSB Document 57 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 10

8
24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
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
5, Exhs. B, C. 	As explained in the trust document, “the primary purpose of the
Trust is to protect each beneficiary from the loss of Trust assets through undue
influence, misuse, or exploitation by others.” Id. The Court finds that the proposed
trust is fair, appropriate and within the bounds of the applicable law.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the (1) proposed settlement
is reasonable and in Plaintiffs E.E.B.P., E.M.M., B.Y.C.G., and A.L.T.J.P.’s best
interests, (2) proposed handling of the settlement funds on E.E.B.P., E.M.M.,
B.Y.C.G., and A.L.T.J.P.’s behalf is also reasonable, (3) apportionment of each
family’s settlement amount equally between Plaintiff Mother and Minor Plaintiff is
fair and reasonable, and (4) the interests of Plaintiff Mothers are aligned with those
of Minor Plaintiffs. 	The Court further finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for
attorneys’ fees of fifteen percent of the settlement amount ($65,250.00) is fair and
reasonable.
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT the Ex
Parte Petition for Approval of Terms of Trust for Minor Plaintiffs [Dkt. No. 52] and
Petition to Approve the Settlement of Minors’ Claims [Dkt. No. 53] and further order
that:
1. The 	settlement 	funds 	for 	Minor 	Plaintiffs 	E.E.B.P., 	E.M.M.,
B.Y.C.G., 	and 	A.L.T.J.P. 	be 	placed 	in 	a 	pooled 	minor’s 	trust
administered by the nonprofit 	Legacy Enhancement Trust, the
primary purpose of which is to protect each Minor Plaintiff from the
loss of Trust assets due to undue influence, misuse, or exploitation
by others;
2. Distribution of Trust funds be overseen by a fiduciary trustee at
Legacy Enhancement Trust;
3. The Trust terminates when each Minor Plaintiff reaches the age of
18;
4. While the Trust is in place, the trustee will make distributions for the
Case 3:24-cv-00312-AGS-MSB Document 57 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 8 of 10

9
24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
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
use and benefit of the Minor Plaintiffs for expenses which are not
provided by or available from another source;
5. No distribution of Trust funds shall discharge Plaintiff Mothers’ legal
obligation to support Minor Plaintiffs in accordance with state law;
6. Permissible distributions include, but are not limited to, expenses
related to education, health care, and technology;
7. Absent extraordinary circumstances, such as one involving health
or 	safety, 	the 	trustee 	will 	not 	distribute 	Trust 	funds 	for 	items
categorized as parental support, such as rent, mortgage, or utility
payments, or for alcohol, cigarettes, bail, bank overdrafts, and other
itemized expenses;
8. Any funds remaining when the Trust terminates be released in full
to each Minor Plaintiff;
9. The cost for administering the Trust consists of only an initial
enrollment fee of $1500.00 and an annual administrative fee of
1.95%;
10. 	No bond shall be required given that the full amount of each
Minor Plaintiff’s settlement proceeds, minus only attorneys’ fees, will
be placed in the Trust and administered by Legacy Enhancement
Trust.
This Report and Recommendation is respectfully submitted to the Honorable
Andrew G. Schopler, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Civil Local Rules 17.1 and 72.1.
IT 	IS 	HEREBY 	ORDERED 	that 	any 	objection 	to 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation must be filed with the Court and served on all parties by
February 6, 2026. Failure to timely object may result in a waiver of the right to
raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158
Case 3:24-cv-00312-AGS-MSB Document 57 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 9 of 10

10
24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
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
F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2026
Hon. David D. Leshner
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-00312-AGS-MSB Document 57 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 10 of 10