ORDER

LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.

Before the court is plaintiffs Karessa Battenfeld ("Battenfeld") and A.D.'s, a minor, motion for order confirming settlement. ECF No. 30. Defendants the Washoe County School District ("WCSD"), Debbie Stebbins ("Stebbins"), and Mathew Burak ("Burak") (collectively "defendants") filed a non-opposition to the motion. ECF No. 32.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

Plaintiff A.D. is a former student of defendant Stebbins at Marvin Picollo Elementary School within WCSD. A.D. is a special needs student and was assigned to Stebbins' special needs classroom for the 2013-2014 school year. During that school year A.D. was allegedly abused by Stebbins on several occasions.

On November 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the underlying complaint against defendants alleging seven causes of action: (1) excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); (3) violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (4) battery; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) negligence; and (7) negligent supervision. ECF No. 1. After the action was filed, the parties agreed to settle plaintiffs' claims for $800,000.00. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed the present motion to confirm settlement. ECF No. 30.

II. Discussion

"District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors." Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). "Rule 17(c) provides, in relevant part, that 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.'" Id. (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 17(c)). "In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court to `conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.'" Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)).

As the Ninth Circuit has recently made clear, in cases involving the settlement of a minor's claims, district courts 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," and 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 1181-82 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078).

Here, A.D., through her guardian ad litem, has agreed to settle her claims against defendants. According to the express terms of the settlement, defendants shall pay plaintiffs $800,000.00 in exchange for a release of all claims. Plaintiffs' counsel are set to receive 1/3 of the total settlement as a contingent fee, calculated before the deduction of expenses, for a total fees award of $213,333.33. After the deduction of fees and costs, the parties have agreed to allocate $417,852.63 from the remaining net proceeds to A.D., through the creation of a special needs trust. This amount constitutes 80% of the total net settlement, with the remaining 20% of net proceeds going to Battenfeld for her own personal claims against defendants. A copy of the proposed special needs trust is attached as an exhibit to the motion. ECF No. 30, Exhibit A. The trust has been specifically drafted by Attorney John C. Smith, an estate planning attorney who specializes in developing estate plans that involve persons with disabilities. Id.

Upon consideration of the facts of the case, A.D.'s specific claims, the terms of the settlement, and recoveries in similar cases, the court finds the settlement to be in the best interest of all of the parties, and specifically A.D., and that the amount of money A.D. will receive ($417,852.63) for her claims is fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the court shall grant plaintiffs' motion as follows:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to confirm settlement (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED in accordance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.