K.W. v. Carlsbad Unified School District et al

1
25cv649-JES (DEB)
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
K.W., a minor, by and through her
mother, NEKAIYA WILSON, and NEKAIYA
WILSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et
al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25cv649-JES (DEB)
[REDACTED] REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER
GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR
APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISE
[ECF NO. 48]
Before the Court is the parties’ December 23, 2025, Joint Motion for Approval of
Minor’s Compromise (“Joint Motion”). (See ECF No. 48.)1 This Report and
Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge James E. Simmons
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Civil Local Rule 17.1 of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California. After reviewing the Joint Motion and for
1 The parties lodged an unredacted version of the Joint Motion to the Court via e-mail on January 9,
2026. On February 26, 2026, the Court granted Defendant Carlsbad Educational Foundation’s Motion
to Seal and ordered the parties to file an unredacted version of the Joint Motion, including the full
settlement agreements. (See ECF No. 50 at 2–3.)
Case 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB Document 52 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 13

2
25cv649-JES (DEB)
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
the reasons discussed below, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT
the Joint Motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff K.W. (“Minor Plaintiff”), by and through her mother,
Nekaiya Wilson, and Plaintiff Nekaiya Wilson (“Ms. Wilson”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”)
initiated this action against Carlsbad Unified School District (“CUSD”) and Carlsbad
Educational Foundation (“CEF”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1.) On July 1,
2025, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (ECF No. 22.) In
the SAC, Plaintiffs bring the following causes of action against CUSD for violations of: (1)
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794); (2) Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.); (3) 42 U.S.C. §1983;
(4) California Education Code §§ 220 and 234.1; (5) California Government Code §
11135; (6) California tort claims of battery, negligence, negligent hiring and supervision,
failure to protect, and failure to accommodate; (7) Title IX; (8) Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.); and (9) 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (Id. at 21–22).
Plaintiffs also assert that CEF violated: (1) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and (2)
Title II of the ADA. (Id. at 25.) On August 19, 2025, and August 20, 2025, CEF and CUSD
filed their respective Answers to the SAC. (ECF Nos. 27 & 29.)
On September 12, 2025, Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher held an Early Neutral
Evaluation, which resulted in a settlement. (ECF No. 38.) On October 31, 2025, the
matter was assigned to the undersigned to fulfill the special duty of the Court to
safeguard the interests of the minor. (ECF No. 41.) After various extensions, the parties
filed the instant Joint Motion on December 23, 2025. (ECF No. 48.)
B. Factual Background
This matter arises from various incidents Minor Plaintiff allegedly experienced
while enrolled as a student of CUSD and CEF programs; Plaintiffs allege these incidents
also caused Ms. Wilson to experience emotional and financial struggles. (See generally
Case 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB Document 52 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 13

3
25cv649-JES (DEB)
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
ECF No. 22 at 3–24.) Around September 30, 2024, Minor Plaintiff, a Black child, was
diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder;
Specific Learning Disorders with Impairment in Math, Reading, and Written Expression;
and Developmental Coordination Disorder. (Id. at 3.) Defendants do not admit fault
and deny all allegations made by Plaintiffs, as well as Plaintiffs’ description and
characterization of events precipitating the lawsuit and harm allegedly suffered by
Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 48 at 4, 13.) The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint [ECF No. 22] and the instant Joint Motion [ECF No. 48].
1. 	Plaintiffs’ allegations against Defendant CUSD
Minor Plaintiff generally alleges she “experienced race-based and disability-based
bullying and mistreatment by staff and classmates at school[] while attending CUSD.”
(ECF No. 48 at 4.) Further, Minor Plaintiff alleges she was “denied the peer-reviewed
and research-based behavior support she required to address her autism.” (Id.) As a
result, Ms. Wilson “suffered emotionally for fear of her child’s wellbeing” and financially
by sacrificing time she would have otherwise spent on her own professional
advancement. (Id. at 4–5.)
a. Altercations with CUSD staff
Minor Plaintiff alleges she was physically assaulted by CUSD teachers several
times. On September 4, 2024, a teacher allegedly grabbed Minor Plaintiff’s wrist, yelled
at her, and yanked her out of the classroom. (Id. at 5.) On January 27, 2025, another
teacher allegedly tightly grabbed Minor Plaintiff’s arm, refused to let go when Minor
Plaintiff asked, and escorted her to the Principal’s office, where she remained for the
rest of the day. (Id. at 9.) On March 5, 2025, Minor Plaintiff alleges a teacher attempted
to confiscate pencils she was rolling on a table. (Id.) This escalated into a physical
altercation—the teacher “tried to snatch the table from [Minor Plaintiff] and it fell to
the ground”—and concluded with the teacher threatening to “call the cops.” (Id.)
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB Document 52 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 13

4
25cv649-JES (DEB)
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
b. Unsupervised internet usage
During class on January 14, 2025, after Ms. Wilson had requested that Minor
Plaintiff not be allowed online without one-on-one supervision, Minor Plaintiff allegedly
went onto Omegle, an online platform that allows users to chat with strangers. (Id. at
8–9.) While on the platform, she came across two inappropriate videos of individuals
engaging in sexual acts. (Id.) On April 17, 2025, CUSD allegedly notified Ms. Wilson that
Minor Plaintiff was engaging in inappropriate online activity on her school device,
including searching for sensory toys and looking up “masterbate.” (Id. at 11.)
c. 	Chocolate allergy incidents
Minor Plaintiff alleges she was subjected to repeated chocolate allergy violations
while at CUSD. In October 2024, Minor Plaintiff allegedly consumed chocolate at school
and broke out in hives, requiring a trip to the school nurse. (Id. at 6–7.) The nurse did
not notify Ms. Wilson, and she only became aware of the incident after picking up Minor
Plaintiff from aftercare and noticing her symptoms. (Id.) On January 16, 2025, a
substitute teacher allegedly gave Minor Plaintiff chocolate in class even though Ms.
Wilson had previously informed the Health Office that she was allergic to chocolate. (Id.
at 9.) In response, the Principal replied that the substitute was not aware of all the
steps needed to ensure everyone was aware of Minor Plaintiff’s allergy. (Id.)
d. Unsupervised release from school
Ms. Wilson would sometimes allow Minor Plaintiff to walk home alone when she
could “keep an eye out for her.” (Id. at 10.) However, on March 10, 2025, Plaintiffs
allege that CUSD released Minor Plaintiff from school and allowed her to walk home
alone without Ms. Wilson’s knowledge, thereby exposing her to “grave danger.” (Id.)
On March 16, 2025, CUSD again released Minor Plaintiff from school without Ms.
Wilson’s knowledge, and Ms. Wilson was not home when Minor Plaintiff arrived. (Id.)
e. Interactions with CUSD students
Minor Plaintiff also experienced physical and verbal altercations with other
students. In early December 2024, Plaintiffs allege that students repeatedly directed
Case 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB Document 52 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 13

5
25cv649-JES (DEB)
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
unkind, hurtful, and racially motivated comments toward Minor Plaintiff. (Id. at 7.)
After Plaintiffs raised concerns to the Principal and requested action, CUSD provided an
“educational other means of correction” statement, which Plaintiffs claim misinformed
students about the history of slavery and racism, among other issues. (Id. at 7–8.) A
few days later, CUSD staff allegedly required Minor Plaintiff to acknowledge how she
had caused another student to call her the “N-word,” and CUSD asked both students to
sign a “Friendship Agreement.” (Id. at 8.)
On April 3, 2025, a female student allegedly sexually assaulted Minor Plaintiff and
Plaintiffs claim CUSD failed to investigate the incident within a reasonable time. (Id. at
10–11.) Later, on April 14, 2025, Minor Plaintiff and another student allegedly got into a
verbal and physical altercation, which involved pinching and pulling hair. (Id.) After the
students were separated and brought to the Principal’s office, Minor Plaintiff spoke of
getting “revenge.” (Id.) When Minor Plaintiff located where the other student was
waiting, she made repeated efforts to “kick[] the door and attempt[] to unlock it.” (Id.)
Plaintiffs allege that if Minor Plaintiff was provided the appropriate behavior support to
address her autism, this incident and Minor Plaintiff’s subsequent behavior could have
been avoided. (Id.) Additionally, in August 2025, Minor Plaintiff became aware that
another student, a child of a CUSD office employee, allegedly spread rumors about
Minor Plaintiff being previously expelled and having violent tendencies. (Id.)
f. 	Discrimination based on race and disability
Plaintiffs also allege that Minor Plaintiff was unfairly treated due to her disability
and race. On February 6, 2025, CUSD allegedly banned Minor Plaintiff from attending
the Lego Club at school because her autistic behavior required a “1:1 behavior support
CUSD was unwilling to provide.” (Id. at 9.) 	On April 16, 2025, Ms. Wilson complained to
the Principal that Minor Plaintiff was the only child suspended after the aforementioned
incidents, despite other students being involved. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiffs claim that Minor
Plaintiff was treated differently due to her blackness. (Id.)
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB Document 52 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 13

6
25cv649-JES (DEB)
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
g. Ms. Wilson’s emotional and financial harms
Due to Minor Plaintiff’s difficulties, Plaintiffs allege Ms. Wilson’s “days became
consumed with advocating for [Minor Plaintiff’s] proper treatment and disability
support at school.” (Id. at 5.) Additionally, Plaintiffs allege Ms. Wilson’s concerns
regarding her daughter’s emotional and physical well-being caused Ms. Wilson to
experience a panic attack and seek medical care. (Id.) Plaintiffs claim Ms. Wilson had to
withdraw from her cybersecurity analyst certification course in September 2024 due to
spending so much time addressing Minor Plaintiff’s situation. (Id.) Further, Plaintiffs
allege Ms. Wilson’s withdrawal from this course caused: (1) direct financial loss of
learning materials, (2) a substantial lost income opportunity because of the certification
delay, (3) a disruption to her career trajectory, and (4) the suspension of contractual
benefits under the GSA Global Security Agency agreement. (Id. at 6.)
2. 	Plaintiffs’ allegations against Defendant CEF
Plaintiffs further allege that Minor Plaintiff did not receive individualized Applied
Behavior Analysis (“ABA”) support for her autism when attending CEF’s after-school
program on the CUSD campus. (Id. at 12.) On January 13, 2025, the CEF Area Manager
(“Manager”) allegedly sent Ms. Wilson a “Behavior Support Plan” requiring one-on-one
behavior modification support for Minor Plaintiff and noting that if Minor Plaintiff’s
disruptive behavior continued, Minor Plaintiff would be removed from the Kids Care
Program (“Kids Care”). (Id.) On January 15, 2025, CEF removed Minor Plaintiff from the
Program. (Id.) Ms. Wilson requested Minor Plaintiff be provided with ABA support so
she could return to Kids Care; however, the Manager notified Ms. Wilson it would be
best for Minor Plaintiff to develop a relationship with her ABA therapist before
returning and that an ABA therapist needed to accompany Minor Plaintiff upon her
return. (Id.) Realizing that her insurance would not cover ABA support, Ms. Wilson
requested that CEF provide the assistance and CEF refused. (Id.) Minor Plaintiff could
not return to Kids Care, which Plaintiffs allege resulted in the deterioration of Minor
Plaintiff’s mental health. (Id. at 12–13.)
Case 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB Document 52 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 13

7
25cv649-JES (DEB)
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
C. Settlement Terms
Minor Plaintiff (by and through her guardian ad litem, Ms. Wilson), Ms. Wilson,
and Defendants CUSD and CEF (collectively, “the Parties”) have agreed to settle these
claims without trial pursuant to the following terms. (Id. at 4, 20.) Defendants agree to
pay 	to Plaintiffs, with CUSD to provide $150,000.00 and CEF to provide
(Id. at 20.) The Parties explain that the $150,000.00 to be paid by CUSD
includes payment to Minor Plaintiff, Ms. Wilson, and attorneys’ fees and costs to the
Law Office of Andréa Marcus, APC. (Id.)
(Id.) The proposed distribution from CUSD is: Minor Plaintiff: $90,000.00; Ms.
Wilson: $22,500.00; and Law Office of Andréa Marcus, APC: $37,500.00 (representing
twenty-five percent of $150,000.00). (Id. at 20–21.) The proposed distribution from CEF
is:
(Id. at 21.) The
Parties propose distribution of Minor Plaintiff’s net settlement by two protected
mechanisms: (1) a 	deposit into a Bank of America blocked, court-restricted
account pursuant to California Rule of Court 7.953, and corresponding Probate Code
protections; and (2) a 	deposit into Minor Plaintiff’s California Achieving a
Better Life Experience (“CalABLE”) account, governed by 26 U.S.C. § 529A and Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 100500–100522, to allow for qualified disability-related savings. (Id. at 21–23.)
Minor Plaintiff’s net recovery is 	, while Ms. Wilson’s net recovery is
(Id. at 25.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Civil Local Rule 17.1 governs settlements for minors. It provides that, “[n]o action
by or on behalf of a minor . . . , or in which a minor . . . has an interest, will be settled,
compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated without court order or
judgment.” See CivLR 17.1(a). It further mandates that, “[a]ll settlements and
compromises must be reviewed by a magistrate judge before any order of approval will
issue.” Id. This rule implements the court’s special duty to safeguard the interests of
Case 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB Document 52 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 13

8
25cv649-JES (DEB)
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
minor litigants in the context of civil settlements. See Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d
1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). The Ninth Circuit has held this duty
obliges the court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement
serves the best interest of the minor.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v.
Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). The “court must independently
investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s claims to assure
itself that the minor’s interests are protected, . . . even if the settlement has been
recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem.” Salmeron v.
United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted).
District courts reviewing the settlement of a minor’s federal claim should “limit
the scope of their review 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 1181–
82. Courts should “evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without
regard to 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. at 1182 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078). “So long as the net recovery
to each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery
in similar cases, the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the
parties.” Id.
Notably, the Ninth Circuit expressly limited Robidoux to “cases involving the
settlement of a minor’s federal claims.” Id. at 1179 n.2 (emphasis added). Where a
settlement involves state law claims, district courts have generally applied state law
rather than the Robidoux framework. See, e.g., DeRuyver v. Omni La Costa Resort &
Spa, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-0516-H-AGS, 2020 WL 563551, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2020); J.T. v.
Tehachapi Unified Sch. Dist., No. 1:16-CV-01492-DAD-JLT, 2019 WL 954783, at *2 (E.D.
Cal. Feb. 27, 2019); A.M.L. v. Cernaianu, LA CV12-06082 JAK (RZx), 2014 WL 12588992,
at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014) (collecting cases). Under California law, the court is tasked
Case 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB Document 52 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 8 of 13

9
25cv649-JES (DEB)
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
with evaluating the “reasonableness of the settlement” and “whether the compromise
is in the best interests of the minor.” A.M.L., 2014 WL 12588992, at *3. The California
Probate Code provides the applicable statutory scheme for compromises involving
minors. See Cal. Prob. Code §§ 3600 et seq. The court has broad discretion “to
authorize payment from the settlement—to say who and what will be paid from the
minor’s money—as well as direct certain individuals to pay it.” Goldberg v. Super. Ct.,
23 Cal. App. 4th 1378, 1382 (1994) (assessing Cal. Prob. Code § 3601). Because Minor
Plaintiff’s claims are brought under both federal and California law, and to ensure all
potentially relevant factors are considered, the Court will review the settlement under
both the federal law (“fair and reasonable”) and state law (“best interests”) standards.
Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181; Anderson v. Latimer, 166 Cal. App. 3d 667, 676 (1985).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. Settlement is Fair, Reasonable, and in Minor Plaintiff’s Best Interests
As stated above, this Court focuses its review on “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 1181–82. Moreover, California law emphasizes protecting “the best
interests of the minor.” Anderson, 166 Cal. App. 3d at 676. Accordingly, the Court will
assess whether Minor Plaintiff’s net recovery of 	is fair, reasonable, and in
Minor Plaintiff’s best interests. After a thorough review, the Court finds that it is.
The gross settlement amount is 	, consisting of $150,000.00 paid by
CUSD and 	paid by CEF. (ECF No. 48 at 20.) After accounting for attorneys’
fees— 	(twenty-five percent of the gross settlement amount), $37,500.00 of
which CUSD is paying—and Ms. Wilson’s recovery— 	, $22,500.00 of which
CUSD is paying—Minor Plaintiff’s net recovery will be 	, $90,000.00 of which
CUSD is paying. (Id. at 25.) The Joint Motion includes examples of court-approved
settlements in Eastern District of California cases that resulted in lower net recoveries
for the minor plaintiffs, as compared to the proposed net recovery for Minor Plaintiff
Case 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB Document 52 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 9 of 13

10
25cv649-JES (DEB)
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
here. (Id. at 28–29.) The Court has reviewed these cases and performed its own
independent review of cases involving similar facts and finds that Minor Plaintiff’s net
recovery is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. See, e.g., L.T. v. Eleanor
Murray Fallon Middle Sch., No. 24-CV-00110-TSH, 2025 WL 1616641, at *2–*3 (N.D. Cal.
June 6, 2025) (finding fair and reasonable a $74,749.38 net recovery for a twelve-year
old minor who was repeatedly called racial slurs at school); E.P. v. Tehachapi Unified
Sch. Dist., No. 1:23-CV-01724-CBD, 2025 WL 832808, at *3–*5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2025)
(finding fair and reasonable a $100,000.00 net recovery for a minor diagnosed with
autism, who alleged a teacher verbally, physically, and emotionally abused him);
Gonzalez v. Chula Vista Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 21-CV-1314-L-DDL, 2024 WL 1466784,
at *2–*3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2024) (finding fair and reasonable a $99,000.00 net recovery
divided amongst four neurodivergent minors who alleged physical harm, fear of physical
harm, and verbal abuse by a teacher); Vasquez v. Richland Sch. Dist., No. 1:19-CV-0327
JLT, 2021 WL 168343, at *3–*4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2021) (finding fair and reasonable a
$37,651.66 net recovery for a fifth grade student who alleged a teacher used
threatening language and was physically abusive at school). Thus, review of analogous
settlements in educational settings demonstrates that Minor Plaintiff’s net recovery
here is fair and reasonable, thereby satisfying the Robidoux standard.
Additionally, the proposed settlement is in Minor Plaintiff’s best interests because
it eliminates the cost, risk, and time commitment of pursuing the case to trial. The
settlement provides Minor Plaintiff with compensation comparable to that obtained in
similar actions and the certainty of recovery, rather than the uncertainty associated with
a jury verdict. Furthermore, the settlement will allow Ms. Wilson to hire ABA experts
“to teach [Minor Plaintiff] neuro-typical behaviors and social communication norms”
and pay for “recreational activities[] where [Minor Plaintiff] can utilize the ABA support
so she can learn the pro-social behaviors . . . that she needs . . . to succeed in the school
setting, and to pursue independent living and further education upon graduation.” (ECF
Case 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB Document 52 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 10 of 13

11
25cv649-JES (DEB)
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
No. 48 at 29.) Thus, this Court finds that Minor Plaintiff’s net recovery of 	is
also in Minor Plaintiff’s best interests, satisfying California law.
B. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The Court must also review the attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid for the
representation of Minor Plaintiff. See Cal. Prob. Code § 3601; see also CivLR 17.1(a).
Where counsel represents a minor on a contingency basis, attorneys’ fees are generally
limited to twenty-five percent of the gross recovery. See, e.g., Gonzalez, 2024 WL
1466784, at *3; D.C. v. Modesto City Schs., No. 1:22-CV-01481-HBK, 2023 WL 6060044,
at*5–*6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2023); L.P. v. Bella Mente Montessori Acad., No. 3:23-CV-
01166-LL-AHG, 2023 WL 4908833, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2023). To determine whether
the fees are reasonable, the Court may consider factors including: the involvement and
circumstances of the minor with a disability; the novelty and difficulty of the legal
services performed; the amount involved and the results obtained; the risk of loss borne
by counsel; and the informed consent of the minor’s representative to the fees. See Cal.
Rule of Ct. 7.955; Cal. Prob. Code § 3601.
As noted in the settlement terms, “Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and all other
expenses will be reimbursed from the proceeds of the settlement.” (ECF No. 48 at 21.)
Plaintiffs’ counsel requests 	, exactly twenty-five percent of the gross
settlement proceeds. (Id. at 25.) In an accompanying exhibit, Plaintiffs’ counsel
provides a detailed breakdown of their legal services and expenses provided from
March to December 2025. (See ECF No. 48-8.) Based on the duration of this case, the
specialization required to represent a minor in a case of this nature, the amount of work
performed by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the request’s adherence to the twenty-five percent
limit historically applied by courts, the undersigned finds the requested attorneys’ fees
to be reasonable.
C. Disbursement of Funds
Civil Local Rule 17.1 requires that “[m]oney or property recovered by a minor . . .
California resident by settlement or judgment must be paid and disbursed in accordance
Case 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB Document 52 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 11 of 13

12
25cv649-JES (DEB)
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
with California Probate Code § 3600, et seq.” CivLR 17.1(b)(1). Pursuant to the
California Probate Code, settlement funds for a minor may be disbursed through various
authorized methods. See Cal. Prob. Code § 3600 et seq. Here, Plaintiffs request that
Minor Plaintiff’s settlement be distributed through two separate protected mechanisms:
(1) deposit into a court-restricted, blocked account and (2) deposit into Minor Plaintiff’s
CalABLE account, “to allow for qualified disability-related savings consistent with federal
and state law.” (ECF No. 48 at 21.) First, Plaintiff proposes that 	of Minor
Plaintiff’s settlement proceeds be placed in a blocked account set up in Minor Plaintiff’s
name at Bank of America. (Id. at 21–22.) No withdrawals are allowed until Minor
Plaintiff reaches the age of eighteen, unless otherwise authorized by this Court. (Id.)
Second, Plaintiffs propose the remaining 	of Minor Plaintiff’s settlement
proceeds be placed into Minor Plaintiff’s CalABLE account, “permitting savings for
individuals with disabilities without affecting eligibility for public benefits, subject to
statutory contribution limits,” with the proceeds exclusively used for “qualified disability
expenses.” (Id. at 22–23.) Plaintiffs note this amount “falls within the federally
permitted annual contribution limit” for this type of account. (Id. at 23.) The account
will be held in Minor Plaintiff’s name, with a parent acting as her authorized legal
representative. (Id.)
This procedure for disposition of the funds—placing a portion of the settlement in
a court-restricted account and setting aside the remainder of the proceeds into a
CalABLE account for approved disability expenses—is consistent with the California
Probate Code. Specifically, Section 3611(b) and (c) authorizes the court, if it is in the
best interest of the minor, to order the settlement funds to be deposited “in an insured
account in a financial institution in this state . . . subject to withdrawal only upon the
authorization of the court” [Cal. Prob. Code §3611(b)] and to allow “the remaining
balance of any money . . . [to] be paid to a special needs trust . . . for the benefit of the
minor . . . with a disability” [Cal. Prob. Code §3611(c)]. Accordingly, the Court finds the
manner of distribution is fair, reasonable, and within the bounds of applicable law.
Case 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB Document 52 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 12 of 13

13
25cv649-JES (DEB)
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
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds the proposed settlement to be a
fair and reasonable resolution of this case in the best interests of Minor Plaintiff, under
both federal and state law. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Court issue
an Order: (1) ADOPTING this Report and Recommendation and (2) GRANTING the Joint
Motion for Approval of Minor’s Compromise [ECF No. 48].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), any party may file written objections with
the District Court and serve a copy on all parties on or before March 16, 2026. The
document should be captioned “Objection to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply
to the objections shall be served and filed on or before March 23, 2026. The parties are
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
The undersigned notes that the Joint Motion in this case is unopposed. (See ECF No.
48.) Therefore, if all parties wish to waive the objections period, they should file a
joint stipulation to that effect immediately, to allow the Court to adopt this Report and
Recommendation without further delay. However, there shall be no adverse
consequences to any party who files objections or otherwise chooses not to waive the
objections period.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00649-JES-DEB Document 52 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 13 of 13