Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
K.D., a minor suing through her mother, filed this medical malpractice action in the Eastern District of California on May 25, 2023, against Banner Lassen Medical Center and several other defendants, including the United States. She alleges that the defendants negligently delayed diagnosing and treating bacterial meningitis when she was five weeks old and that she suffered serious injuries as a result. Those are allegations only; the order decides nothing about liability.
After a mediation of more than nine hours before a retired judge, the parties reached a global settlement on July 24, 2026, and K.D. petitioned on September 22, 2026 for approval of the minor's compromise. The United States, Chase Dennis Emergency Medical Group, Banner Lassen, Marc Nielsen and Edward Schellert filed statements of non-opposition. Matthew Kolosky, a settling defendant, filed no response, and the time to do so had passed. K.D. also filed an unopposed motion to advance consideration because the annuity's projected purchase date was November 2, 2026, before the scheduled November 6 hearing.
The court must protect minors in litigation and conduct its own inquiry into whether a settlement serves the minor's best interests. Under Robidoux v. Rosengren, it asks whether the net amount distributed to the minor is fair and reasonable given the case facts, the minor's specific claim, and recoveries in similar cases. Robidoux addressed federal claims, but district courts apply it to state claims too. Local Rule 202 adds disclosure requirements, including attorney employment and compensation terms.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition on the papers, vacated the November 6, 2026 hearing, and denied the administrative motion as moot. It found the petition satisfied the disclosure requirements of Local Rule 202(b) and (c).
The gross settlement is $850,000: Kolosky $375,000, Banner Lassen $250,000, Nielsen and Schellert together $150,000, and the United States $75,000. Chase Dennis Emergency Medical Group is to be dismissed with prejudice in exchange for a mutual waiver of costs. Counsel's contingency agreement would have produced $156,121.85 in fees, but counsel voluntarily reduced that by $99,251.27 to $56,870.58. After costs, fees and medical liens, K.D.'s net recovery is $500,000. Kolosky's $375,000 and $125,000 of Banner Lassen's payment fund an annuity from Pacific Life & Annuity Services; the remaining $350,000 goes to counsel's trust account for fees, costs and liens. The annuity pays $1,261.14 monthly, compounded at 3% annually, from December 2, 2026 to July 2, 2038, then guarantees K.D. $1,745.72 monthly, also compounded at 3%, from August 2, 2038 through November 2, 2066.
The petition cited no comparable recoveries, but the court's own research found the net amount similar to approved medical malpractice compromises, citing M.S. v. United States (net $495,250.19) and Bravo v. United States (net $97,890.48). It found the fee reasonable because a fee of no more than 25% matches the district benchmark for minors' cases and counsel reduced it further. It found the structured disbursement reasonable under Local Rule 202(e), and also weighed the lack of opposition, the guardian's belief that the deal is fair, and the retired-judge mediation.
Key Takeaways
- Even an unopposed minor's compromise requires the court's own inquiry, centered on whether the net amount to the child is fair and reasonable.
- Although the petition cited no comparable recoveries, the court supplied its own comparisons rather than denying approval.
- Counsel's voluntary fee reduction, from $156,121.85 to $56,870.58, supported the finding that the fee was reasonable.
- The order approves the settlement terms and annuity structure only; it makes no finding on negligence, causation or damages.
- The case remains open: the parties must still file dispositional documents by January 22, 2027.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court order applying settled Ninth Circuit principles, and it carries no precedential weight beyond these parties. Its value lies in showing what the court examined: the net recovery rather than the $850,000 gross figure, comparison with approved settlements, the district's fee benchmark, the annuity structure, and the mediation process.
Practitioners should note that the missing comparables in the petition were not fatal here because the court researched them itself, though petitions that supply comparables avoid depending on that research. Dismissal of all claims still awaits the dispositional filings.