Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

:

CHERYL JOHNSON, et al. :

:

v. : NO. 21-CV-5541

:

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al. :

____________________________________:

O P I N I O N

SCOTT W. REID DATE: January 6, 2026

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In this case, minor plaintiff S.M., acting through his mother and natural guardian, Cheryl

Johnson, is one of several plaintiffs who sued the City of Philadelphia and several police officers

in connection with the death by suicide of Saul Montgomery, III, while he was in the custody of

the Philadelphia Police Department on December 20, 2019. S.M. is the child of Saul

Montgomery, III. The other plaintiffs are the decedent’s two adult children.

Cheryl Johson, as mother and natural guardian for S.M., and counsel Jonathan James,

Esq., now petition the Court for approval of a Minor’s Compromise in the settlement of this

matter. For the reasons that follow, the Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise (“the

Petition”) will be granted.

I. Factual Background

Following negotiations presided over by the Honorable Carol Sandra Moore Wells, the

parties propose to settle this case for a total amount of $180,000.00, of which S.M. would

recover $60,000.00. Of this amount, $19,729.17 would be allocated to counsel as attorney’s

fees, and $812.50 would be allocated to counsel to reimburse costs and expenses. The remaining

$39,458.33 would be allocated to S.M., available to him when he turns eighteen.

II. Relevant Legal Standards

Under the rules of this Court, “no claim of a minor … shall be compromised, settled, or

dismissed unless approved by the court.” Local Rule of Civil Procedure for the Eastern District

of Pennsylvania 41.2(a). Nor may a counsel fee, cost, or expense be paid out of any fund

obtained for a minor as a result of a “compromise, settlement, dismissal or judgment” unless

approved by the court. Id. at Rule 41.2(c).

In considering whether to approve a settlement, the Court is charged with protecting the

best interests of the minor. Epps v. Geico Secure Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 23-1337, 2023 WL

5985281 at *1-2 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 14, 2023); Nice v. Centennial Area Sch. Dist., 98 F. Supp.2d 665,

669 (E.D. Pa. 2000). A court must consider the party’s petition for approval of the settlement,

which should include all relevant facts and the reasons why the minor’s guardian believes the

settlement is desirable and why it is in the minor’s best interest to settle the action. A.F. v.

Leisure Time Products, LLC, Civ. A. No. 22-4914, 2024 WL 493421 at *1-2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 7,

2024), quoting Lee v. Victoria’s Secret, LLC, Civ. A. No. 10-3662, 2012 WL 628015 at *2 (E.D.

Pa. Feb. 27, 2012).

Courts are reluctant to disturb valid contingency fee arrangements. Epps, supra at *1.

Nevertheless, “regardless of any fee agreement, as the protector of the minor’s interests, the

court must independently investigate the fee to be charged to ensure that it is fair and

reasonable.” Id., quoting J.N. v. Penn-Delco School District, Civ. A. No. 14-1618, 2017 WL

395481 at *4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2017). The court therefore has the discretion to adjust the

amount of counsel fees taken from a settlement involving a minor even where the party entered a

contingency fee arrangement. Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Temple Univ. Hospital, Inc., Civ. A. No.

21-3413, 2025 WL 3068735 at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2025), quoting Lee, supra, at *3.

III. Discussion

The Petitioners explain why they believe that the settlement is desirable, and why it is in

S.M.’s best interest. They explain that, although Plaintiffs allege that Defendants acted with

deliberate indifference in failing to place the decedent on suicide watch or house him in a suicide

prevention cell, despite his statements of suicidal intent, the Defendants deny this. Petition, at ¶¶

6-11. Specifically, evidence exists which suggests that the risk of suicide “was refuted by

updated facts.” Id. at ¶ 17.

Further, Plaintiffs face the “highly challenging” task of overcoming qualified immunity

under §1983, requiring them to prove “not only deliberate indifference to a known substantial

risk of suicide but also that [the Defendants’ acts] contravened clearly established law in a

particularized context.” Id. at ¶ 16. Even if Plaintiffs could succeed in overcoming qualified

immunity by demonstrating deliberate indifference that went beyond negligence, the economic

value of the case is limited by “the decedent’s lack of a provable employment history.” Id. at ¶

19.

The Petitioners also explain that the requested attorney’s fee in the amount of one third of

the recovery, after expenses are deducted, is consistent with the contingency fee agreement

executed by S.M. through his guardian. Fee Agreement, attached to Petition as Exhibit B.

Moreover, the Petitioners specify that the total costs and expenses of $2,437.50 include a

$402.00 filing fee in this case, a $244.25 fee for raising the estate in Philadelphia Probate Court,

as well $1,278.75 in expenditures by counsel for the two other plaintiffs. Petition at Exhibit C.

The expenses have been divided between the three plaintiffs, with each to pay $812.50. Petition

at ¶¶ 12-13.

I have also taken into account the fact that the parties negotiated this settlement at arm’s

length and in good faith, in conferences presided over by my colleague, Judge Wells.

Petition at ¶ 9.

On the basis of the above considerations, I conclude that a $60,000.00 settlement of the

claims belonging to minor plaintiff S.M. is adequate and reasonable to compensate S.M. for the

losses suffered as a result of the death of his father, considering the facts of the case, the potential

cost of trial, and the likelihood of success. Given these factors, the attorney’s fee is reasonable.

The settlement is, therefore, in the best interests of the minor plaintiff, S.M.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I will, in a separate order of this date, GRANT the Petition

for Approval of Minor’s Compromise filed by Petitioners Cheryl Johnson and Jonathan J. James,

Esq. and docketed as ECF Document No. 53, and will direct the disposition of the proceeds of

the settlement of S.M.’s claims in accordance with the Petition.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Scott W. Reid

___________________________________

SCOTT W. REID

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE