ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

Jermaine Padilla, a mentally ill plaintiff for whom the court has appointed a guardian ad litem, brought this action against several prison employees for alleged mistreatment while plaintiff was incarcerated in Corcoran State Prison. Compl., ECF No. 1. After five days of jury trial, the parties reached a settlement agreement. Mot. 3, ECF No. 290. Plaintiff now moves to approve the settlement and establish a special needs trust in order to maintain Padilla's eligibility for public benefits. Id. at 1. Defendants do not oppose the motion. Defs.' Statement of Non-Opp'n, ECF No. 294. The court heard argument on the motion on November 3, 2017, and requested a focused supplemental brief following, which plaintiff has filed. See Suppl. Br., ECF No. 298. Having reviewed all of the briefing, considered the arguments at hearing, and good cause appearing, the court GRANTS plaintiff's motion for the reasons explained below.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jermaine Padilla "has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, paranoid type, and has a history of mental illness, including, at times, hospitalization." Mot. 1. Plaintiff receives Medi-Cal and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) based on his psychiatric disability. Id. Cynthia Gonzalez was appointed to serve as guardian ad litem for plaintiff on January 27, 2017. ECF No. 186.

Plaintiff filed his action in this court alleging defendants "denied him adequate and necessary medical and mental health treatment, were deliberately indifferent to his serious mental health needs, failed to protect him from harm, and subjected him to excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment during his incarceration in Corcoran State Prison in 2012." Mot. 2. Plaintiff additionally alleged discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the basis of his mental disability. Id.

After a series of motions to dismiss, summary judgment motions and settlement conferences, a jury trial commenced on April 17, 2017. ECF No. 273. As noted, the parties agreed to settle the case on April 25, 2017, day six of trial. ECF No. 283. On September 15, 2017, plaintiff filed this motion referencing Local Rule 202(b), and on October 20, 2017, defendants filed their statement of non-opposition. Mot; Statement of Non-Opp'n.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, district courts have a duty to protect the interests of litigants who are minors or incompetent. A district court "must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). This special duty also requires a district court, in the event of a settlement, to "conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the [plaintiff]." Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978); see also E.D. Cal. R. 202(b) ("No claim by or against a minor or incompetent person may be settled or compromised absent an order by the Court approving the settlement or compromise.").

The Ninth Circuit has further instructed district courts to "limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net amount distributed to each [] plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the [plaintiff]'s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases." Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Smith v. City of Stockton, 185 F.Supp.3d 1242, 1243-44 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (applying the Robidoux standard in case in which plaintiff was an incompetent individual, not a minor). This fairness determination is made "without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for . . . plaintiff's counsel." Id. at 1182.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Fair and Reasonable

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, defendants agreed to pay plaintiff $950,000. The payment does not include exemplary or punitive damages or pre-judgement or post-judgement interest. Each party agreed to pay its attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff's counsel will receive 40 percent of the award ($380,000), which plaintiff asserts is standard in civil rights cases. Mot. at 5; Decl. of Lori Rifkin 4, ECF No. 290-4.1 Plaintiff's counsel also will "receive $73,968.19 in reimbursement for the costs [p]laintiff's attorneys advanced to fund the litigation." Mot. at 6; Decl. at 4. These costs were incurred in the form of two experts' fees for which plaintiff was not billed. Mot. at 6; Decl. at 4. Plaintiff's guardian ad litem seeks no compensation for the significant amount of time she has expended in performing her appointed role. Mot. at 8; Decl. at 4-5. After reimbursing his attorney $453,968.19 in contingency fees and litigations costs, plaintiff will receive $496,031.812.

After reviewing the facts of the case and plaintiff's specific claims, the court finds the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. Under Robidoux, this court must consider "recovery in similar cases." 638 F.3d at 1182. Here, the court has reviewed Smith, in which the court surveyed other cases and approved a $280,000 gross settlement with a 40 percent contingency fee and litigation costs subtracted from plaintiff's total recovery. In Smith, plaintiff, "a developmentally delayed adult," was allegedly unlawfully tackled, restrained and arrested by a police officer and attacked by a police dog. 185 F.Supp.3d at 1243. The parties settled the case after mediating with the assistance of a former judge of the court. Id. at 1244. They filed notice of settlement within two months after the complaint was filed. See Notice of Settlement, Smith v. City of Stockton, Case No. 15-cv-2511 MCE AC (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016) (following filing of complaint on Dec. 2, 2015). Taking into account that the plaintiff in Smith avoided the time and costs of preparing for and initiating trial, Smith is sufficiently analogous to support the court's determination that the settlement in this case is fair and reasonable.

B. Preservation of Eligibility for Need-Based Benefits

An additional consideration in this case relates to plaintiff's receipt of needs-based benefits in the form of Medi-Cal and his eligibility to receive SSI. Plaintiff, through his guardian ad litem, has filed a separate petition to create a special needs trust. "Because SSI and Medi-Cal are `needs-based,' outright distribution of assets to [plaintiff] or a conservatorship estate will result in his losing eligibility for this vital public benefit unless the assets are directed to a qualifying special needs trust." Pet. to Establish Special Needs Trust, ECF No. 290-2. In light of his mental illness, plaintiff has been unable to hold employment and therefore has been dependent on his benefit payments. Decl. of Cynthia Gonzalez 4, ECF No. 295. Plaintiff's guardian has expressed concern that plaintiff will lose his benefits if he receives his settlement fund in one lump sum. Id. at 5. Plaintiff and his mother reportedly have expressed their desire for plaintiff to receive the settlement as a lump sum. See id. at 1. Having carefully considered this request, the court has determined the interests of justice support relying on plaintiff's guardian ad litem as his appointed representative; her request serves the plaintiff's best interests, all things considered. Id. Accordingly, the court finds good cause to allow plaintiff's net settlement proceeds to be distributed to a special needs trust to preserve his eligibility for SSI and Medi-Cal benefits.

IV. CONCLUSION

As set forth above, the court finds the proposed settlement and special needs trust serve the best interests of the plaintiff. It therefore GRANTS the motion to approve settlement and establish a special needs trust.

To effect this order, defendants are directed to immediately deposit funds, in the amount of plaintiff's share of the settlement proceeds, $496,031.81, in the court's deposit fund.

Plaintiff's counsel is directed to promptly file with the court a notice confirming the identity of the trustee for the special needs trust and the trustee's address for the purposes of disbursement of plaintiff's share of the proceeds. Upon review and receipt of the notice, the court will provide further direction to the Clerk's Office.

The court APPROVES and directs defendants to make payment of $453,968.19 to plaintiff's counsel as "Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP General Account," with payment made in accordance with the parties' settlement agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

I. PARTIES

This Settlement Agreement and Release (Agreement) concerns JERMAINE PADILLA (Plaintiff) and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) on behalf of Defendants JENNA CASTRO, MARK DREW, CONNIE GIPSON, SABRINA JOHNSON, MICHAEL ROBICHEAUX, MICHAEL STAINER, and ERNEST WAGNER (Defendants). Plaintiff, CDCR, and Defendants shall be referred to as "the parties."

II. RECITALS

Certain disputes and differences have arisen between the parties to this Agreement. These disputes and differences resulted in Plaintiff filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, JERMAINE PADILLA v. JEFFREY BEARD, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01118 KJM-CKD (the Complaint). This Agreement covers all of the claims and allegations in the Complaint and any amendments thereto against Defendants, whether named or unnamed and whether served or unserved, and any past or current employees of CDCR, as related to claims and allegations in the Complaint and any amendments thereto.

Defendants, including CDCR, deny all of the allegations of wrongdoing made by Plaintiff in this lawsuit. The parties, however, now desire and intend by this Agreement to settle all disputes between them relating to the claims alleged in the Complaint, including any rights to appeal, and that concern in any way the allegations of the Complaint, and to discharge each other from any and all liability with reference to such claims, except as specifically set forth in this Agreement.

Therefore, in consideration of the covenants set forth in this Agreement, the parties settle their dispute on the terms and conditions set forth below.

III. TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. CDCR shall pay a total of $950,000 (settlement amount) in connection with Plaintiff's claims against Defendants. The settlement amount falls within the meaning of section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26 U.S.C.A. § 104(a)(2) and 130(c)). The settlement amount shall be distributed as follows:

2. Plaintiff shall sign a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which Defendants shall file by no later than ten days after the Court approves the settlement.

3. Plaintiff shall complete a Payee Data Form to enable payment and credit toward his restitution obligations. Additionally, Plaintiff's counsel shall complete a Payee Data Form to enable payment to Hadsell, Stormer & Renick LLP. If Plaintiff requests that payment be made to another person or entity, then that person or entity must also complete a Payee Data Form. Plaintiff shall return the completed Payee Data Forms to Defendants' counsel as soon as reasonably possible.

4. CDCR will make a good-faith effort to pay the settlement amount (minus any restitution amounts, liens and fees) within 180 days from the date Plaintiff delivers to Defendants a signed settlement agreement, a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, and all of the required Payee Data Forms. Plaintiff understands that payment may be delayed by the lack of a State budget, a funding shortfall despite a State budget, the processing efforts of the State Controller's Office, and other events not attributable to Defendants or CDCR. Unless expressly stated otherwise, no interest shall be paid on the settlement amount.

5. No other monetary sum will be paid to Plaintiff or his attorneys of record.

6. Except as provided above in paragraph 1, each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees.

7. The Warden at California State Prison-Corcoran, where the Complaint arose, will sign this Agreement on behalf of CDCR and the Defendants. There are no other actions required on the part of CDCR or Defendants.

8. The Court will retain jurisdiction for twelve months, from the date the agreement is executed by all parties, to enforce this Agreement.

IV. GENERAL RELEASE

It is the intention of the parties in signing this Agreement that it shall be effective as a full and final accord and satisfaction and release from all claims asserted in the Complaint. By signing this Agreement, Plaintiff releases CDCR, Defendants, whether named or unnamed and whether served or unserved, and any other past or current CDCR employees from all claims, past, present and future, known or unknown, that arise or could arise from the facts alleged in the Complaint.

In furtherance of this intention, the parties acknowledge that they are familiar with, and expressly waive, the provisions of California Civil Code section 1542, which states:

This Agreement is the compromise of various disputed claims and shall not be treated as an admission of liability by any of the parties for any purpose. The signature of or on behalf of the respective parties does not indicate or acknowledge the validity or merits of any claim or demand of the other party.

V. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS

This Agreement shall be binding on the parties and their respective officers, agents, administrators, successors, assignees, heirs, executors, trustees, attorneys, consultants, and any committee or arrangement of creditors organized with respect to the affairs of any such party.

Plaintiff represents that he owns the interests, rights, and claims that are the subject matter of this Agreement. Plaintiff and his principals, agents, attorneys, successors, assigns, heirs, descendants, executors, representatives, partners, and associates fully release and discharge the other parties and their principals, agents, attorneys, successors, assigns, heirs, descendants, executors, representatives, partners, and associates from all rights, claims, and actions that Plaintiff and his successors now may have or at any time in the future may have against the other parties and their successors.

VI. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES

No other consideration. The consideration recited in this Agreement is the only consideration for this Agreement, and no representations, promises, or inducements have been made to the parties, or any of their representatives, other than those set forth in this Agreement.

Execution in counterpart. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

Execution of further documents. Each party to this Agreement shall complete, execute or cause to be executed such further and other documents as are needed to carry out the expressed intent and purpose of this Agreement.

Entire agreement. This Agreement constitutes a single, integrated agreement expressing the entire agreement of the parties, and there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the parties, except as set forth in this Agreement.

No oral modifications or waiver. No supplement, modification, or amendment to this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by all the parties. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver.

Governing law. Unless expressly stated otherwise in this Agreement, the terms, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement are governed by and interpreted under California state law.

Severability. Should any provision of this Agreement be held invalid or illegal, such illegality shall not invalidate the whole of this Agreement, but the Agreement shall be construed as if it did not contain the illegal part, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced accordingly.

The undersigned agree to the above: