The opinion
United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Orlando Division
K.S., BY AND THROUGH DAVID AND
ALISHA SCOLES, AS PARENTS AND
NATURAL GUARDIANS,
Plaintiff,
v. NO. 6:23-cv-616-UAM
SCHOOL BOARD OF
ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Defendant.
Order
A minor’s parents sue the School Board of Orange County, Florida, for
an alleged violation of a provision of Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a); and alleged negligent training and
supervision. Doc. 35. The Court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the
minor’s interests. Doc. 50. The parents ask the Court to approve a settlement
and a fee arrangement. Docs. 59, 65. The Court heard arguments on the
requests. Doc. 68. The School Board has no opposition. Doc. 65 at 5.
Florida law requires court approval of the settlement of an action by a
guardian on a minor’s behalf, Fla. Stat. § 744.387(3)(a), to protect the minor’s
and guardian’s interests, McLaughlin v. Lara, 133 So. 3d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2013). The court considers whether the settlement is in the minor’s best
interest, Bullard v. Sharp, 407 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), as fair,
adequate, reasonable, and free from collusion, In re Smith, 926 F.2d 1027, 1029
(11th Cir. 1991). If the gross settlement amount is $50,000 or greater, the court
must appoint a guardian ad litem before settlement approval. Fla. Stat.
§ 744.3025(1)(b). The guardian ad litem’s duty is to protect the minor’s
interests. Fla. Stat. § 744.3025(1)(d).
Under the settlement, the School Board will pay $210,000.00 in exchange
for a release. Doc. 65-1 at ¶¶ 3, 7. The School Board will issue a check for
$133,710.22 to buy a structured settlement benefiting the minor and a check
for $76,289.78 to pay an attorney’s fee and costs. Doc. 65-1 ¶ 3. The settlement
considers that, under Florida law, an attorney’s fee for a claim against a
sovereign entity may not exceed 25 percent. See Fla. Stat. § 768.28(8).
The guardian ad litem opines (1) the settlement is favorable to the minor
considering the available funds and the injuries, (2) the settlement is
reasonable and acceptable, (3) the costs incurred “appear … appropriate and
justified,” (4) the attorney’s fee is reasonable considering the time, expense,
and risk associated with this type of action, (5) the fund distribution is
reasonable, and (6) the structured settlement is in the minor’s best interest.
Doc. 54 ¶¶ 1620. The guardian ad litem elaborated on her qualifications and
opinions at the hearing. See Doc. 68.
Based on a review of the record and representations at the hearing, the
Court agrees with the guardian ad litem’s opinions and finds the settlement is
in the minor’s best interest as fair, adequate, reasonable, and free from
collusion. Approving the settlement is warranted.
Rule 4-1.5(f) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar requires court
approval of fee splitting under certain circumstances. A fee division between
lawyers in different firms under circumstances present in this action may be
made only if the total fee is reasonable and (1) the division is proportional to
the services performed by each lawyer or (2) “by written agreement with the
client: (A) each lawyer assumes joint legal responsibility for the representation
and agrees to be available for consultation with the client” and “(B) the
agreement fully discloses that a division of fees will be made and the basis
upon which the division of fees will be made.” Rule 4-1.5(g). The determinative
factor is whether the lawyers have established a co-counsel relationship. Rule
4-1.5(f)(4)(D) Gi) cmt.
Based on counsel’s declaration, Doc. 47-1, a review of the amended fee
agreement, Doc. 47-2, and the representations at the hearing that one firm has
school-related legal experience and familiarity with the pre-litigation Title IX
proceedings involving the minor and the other firm has litigation experience
and familiarity with federal-court practice, the Court finds that the fee
arrangement, to which the parents agreed, Doc. 47-1 at 2, Doc. 47-2 § 1, is
reasonable and appropriate. Considering the absence of prejudice or objection,
the belated nature of the application is not a basis for denying it. Approving
the fee arrangement is warranted.
The motion to approve the settlement, Doc. 65, and the application for
approval of the fee arrangement, Doc. 59, are granted. The settlement and fee
arrangement are approved. By May 16, 2025, the parties must file the joint
stipulation of dismissal described in paragraph 4 of the settlement agreement,
Doc. 65-1 § 4, or other appropriate dismissal papers.
Ordered in Jacksonville, Florida, on April 4, 2025.
United States Magistrate Judge