Opinion
CV 20-0340 JHR/SCY CV 19-0095 JHR/SCY
05-03-2022
DIANE GARRITY ESQ., as Court-Appointed Guardian Ad Litem for S.N.G., a minor, Plaintiff, v. THE GOVERNANCE BOARD OF CARINOS CHARTER SCHOOL and VERNON JARAMILLO, individually, Defendants, and DIANE GARRITY ESQ., as Court-Appointed Guardian Ad Litem for L.A., a minor, Plaintiff, v. THE GOVERNANCE BOARD OF CARINOS CHARTER SCHOOL and VERNON JARAMILLO, individually,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING MINORS' JOINT SETTLEMENT
JERRY H. RITTER U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
THESE MATTERS are before the Court on the propriety of a joint settlement negotiated on behalf of the minors S.N.G. and L.A. The parties consented to me “to conduct all proceedings and enter a final order [regarding the propriety of the joint settlement] in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).” [S.N.G. Doc. 144; L.A. Doc. 94]. Having (1) appointed Allegra Carpenter to act as the Guardian ad Litem for the minors [S.N.G. Doc. 150; L.A. Doc. 98], (2) held a joint fairness hearing on April 15, 2022 [S.N.G. Doc. 153; L.A. Doc. 103], and (3) thoroughly reviewed Ms. Carpenter's reports [S.N.G. Doc. 152; L.A. Doc. 100], the Court finds the joint settlement is fair to the minors and approves the settlement.
All citations to “S.N.G. Doc.” refer to documents filed in the civil case: 19-0095 JHR/SCY.
All citations to “L.A. Doc.” refer to documents filed in the civil case: 20-0340 JHR/SCY.
I. BACKGROUND
These two cases were brought by two minors with similar claims against identical defendants. [See generally S.N.G. Doc. 1-1; L.A. Doc. 1]. The two minors hired common counsel and Diane Garrity acts as the litigation Guardian ad Litem on behalf of each. [S.N.G. Doc. 1-1; L.A. Doc. 37]. After a joint mediation facilitated by U.S. Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa, a settlement was reached. [S.N.G. Doc. 143; L.A. Doc. 93]. Upon joint request, I appointed Allegra Carpenter to act as the Court's Guardian ad Litem to evaluate the fairness of the settlement. [S.N.G. Doc. 150; L.A. Doc. 98]. The Guardian ad litem filed her reports on April 8, 2022, recommending approval of the joint settlement. [See generally S.N.G. Doc. 152; L.A. Doc. 100]. The Court adopts the Guardian ad litem reports as further findings supporting this Order.
The Court held a joint fairness hearing on April 15, 2022, to review the settlement and determine whether it is fair to both minors. [S.N.G. 153; L.A. Doc. 103]. Participants included S.N.G. and her mother Veronica, L.A. and her mother Valerie, the common litigation Guardian ad Litem Ms. Garrity, Plaintiffs' attorneys Linda Hemphill, Leigh Messerer and Linda Martinez-Palmer, Defendants' counsel Jerry Walz for the Governance Board and Gerald Coppler for Vernon Jaramillo, and the Court's Guardian ad Litem Allegra Carpenter. [Id.]. The Guardian ad litem presented her reports and her recommendation to approve the joint settlement and answered questions; the Court took judicial notice of the reports. [Id.]. The minors' Guardian ad litem Diane Garrity, Veronica (S.N.G.'s mother), and Valerie (L.A.'s mother) then each testified to their understanding and approval of the settlement. [See id.]. At the close of the evidence, all of the parties expressed approval of the joint settlement and requested the Court's approval on their behalf. [Id.].
II. GOVERNING LAW
The Court's power to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of minor children arises from the text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) which, itself, “flows from the general duty of the court to protect the interests of infants and incompetents in cases before the court.” Garrick v. Weaver, 888 F.2d 687, 693 (10th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Appointment of a guardian ad litem is appropriate whenever “the interests of the infant and the infant's legal representative diverge[.]” Id. (citation omitted). In a setting such as this, the guardian ad litem's primary mission is to investigate and advise the Court whether a settlement negotiated by adults should be approved on behalf of a minor who was involved in the negotiations only by representation.
While recognizing that the claims at issue here are primarily federal (Garrick was a diversity case), as was discussed by Magistrate Judge Vidmar in Unruh v. James D. Vandever Trucking, Inc., the judiciary in New Mexico generally bears “a special obligation to see that children are properly represented, not only by their own representatives, but also by the court itself.” No. 17-cv-0422 JCH/SMV, 2018 WL 1684328, at *3 (D.N.M. April 6, 2018). The Court is, therefore, guided by both state and federal case law in analyzing the reasonableness of the pertinent settlement and its fairness to the minors.
Aided by the guardian ad litem, the Court's role is to review any proposed settlement affecting minor children to determine whether the settlement is “fair” and in the “best interests of the minor children.” Unruh v. James D. Vandever Trucking, Inc., No. 17-cv-0422 JCH/SMV, 2018 WL 1684328, at *3 (D.N.M. April 6, 2018) (quoted authority omitted). The Court is guided by the following factors:
(1) whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (2) whether serious questions of law or fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt; (3) whether the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere
possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation; and (4) the judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable.Jones v. Nuclear Pharm., Inc., 741 F.2d 322, 324 (10th Cir. 1984) (citing In re King Resources Co. Security Litigation, 420 F.Supp. 610 (D. Colo. 1976)). If the settlement is not fair to a child involved in any respect, it must be rejected. Unruh, 2018 WL 1684328, at *3-4.
III. FINDINGS
Having considered the evidence presented, including Guardian ad litem Allegra Carpenter's findings and recommendations, the Court finds that:
(1) The proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated.
(2) Serious questions of law and fact exist which, in the absence of this settlement, place the ultimate outcome of this litigation in doubt.
(3) The value of an immediate recovery through this settlement outweighs the mere possibility of future relief through what would be protracted and expensive litigation.
(4) In the judgment of all the parties, this settlement is fair and reasonable.Ms. Carpenter recommends approval of the joint settlement and findings that the parties' agreement is knowing, voluntary, and in the best interest of the minors. Based on the entire record, including Veronica (S.N.G's mother), Valerie (L.A.'s mother), and Guardian ad litem Diane Garrity's testimony approving the joint settlement, the Court finds that the settlement is a knowing and voluntary agreement on behalf of each of the parties including the minors, and that it is fair and in the best interest of both minors.
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the above reasons, the Court hereby:
1. adopts Ms. Carpenter's report and recommendations [S.N.G. Doc. 152; L.A. Doc. 100];
2. approves the joint settlement reached between the parties;
3. orders closing documents due within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order;
4. orders Ms. Carpenter be compensated according to the order of appointment entered on February 1, 2022 [See S.N.G. Doc. 150; L.A. Doc. 98];
5. concludes that, upon entry of a final judgment, Ms. Carpenter has completed her duties and is hereby discharged from any further duties in this matter.
SO ORDERED.