Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Jan. 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

John Rapp, in his Personal Capacity and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Nicholas Winton Rapp, deceased; et al. v. Naphcare, Inc., an Alabama Corporation; et al.

District Court, W.D. Washington

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 3:21-cv-05800

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

8 JOHN RAPP, in his Personal Capacity and as NO. 3:21-cv-05800-DGE

Personal Representative of the Estate of

9 NICHOLAS WINTON RAPP, deceased; et al. STIPULATED ORDER APPROVING

MINOR SETTLEMENT

10 Plaintiffs,

11 v.

12 NAPHCARE, INC., an Alabama Corporation;

et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

THIS MATTER comes before the court for approval of a minor settlement for N.R.
15

The Court has reviewed the following documents:

16

1. Stipulated Order Approving Minor Settlement;

17

2. Stipulated Motion to Approve Settlement and Dismiss and [Proposed] Order;
18

3. Settlement Guardian ad Litem Report filed by the court-appointed Settlement Guardian
19

ad Litem, John R. Wilson, dated November 5, 2025;

20

4. Files and records herein.

21

Having considered this information and being fully advised, the Court enters the following
22

Order:

23

1. The settlement amount of $2,750,000.00 is approved.

24

25 STIPULATED ORDER APPROVING MINOR

2 amount of $1,100,000.00 are approved.

3 3. The costs incurred by Galanda Broadman, PLLC, in the amount of $150,752.89 are
4 approved.

5 4. Probate counsel Ross Gardner's remaining fees to conclude the probate of the estate
6 in the amount of $5,000.00 are approved.

7 5. The costs of Settlement Guardian ad Litem and of Ross Gardner are estimated final
8 amounts. Any residual costs for these individuals that may be incurred over and above the amounts
9 delineated in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 shall be covered by a $5,000.00 additional reserve set aside
10 from the net settlement proceeds.

11 6. The Settlement Guardian ad Litem fee in the amount of $5,000.00 is approved.

12 Defendants Kitsap County and NaphCare, Inc. shall pay $2,500 of the Settlement Guardian ad
13 Litem fee. Plaintiffs will pay $2,500 of the Settlement Guardian ad Litem fee. Any additional
14 amounts due will come out of the $5,000.00 reserve.

15 7. The allocation of net settlement proceeds as indicated below serves the best interests
16 of the minor litigant and is approved:

17 The minor, N.R., shall receive 66.66% of net settlement proceeds, and John and
18 Judith Rapp shall each receive 16.67% of net settlement proceeds.

19 The minor, N.R., shall receive 80% net settlement proceeds, and John and Judith
20 Rapp shall each receive 10% of net settlement proceeds.

21 In cases involving minors, the Court has a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil

22 Procedure 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors. This duty requires the Court
23 to conduct “its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the
24 minor.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Salmeron v. United
25 STIPULATED ORDER APPROVING MINOR

2 and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s

3 interests are protected, even if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the minor’s
4 parent or guardian ad litem.”).

5 The Court’s inquiry is limited to “the question [of] whether the net amount distributed to
6 each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the
7 minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82. This
8 inquiry must be performed “without regard to the amount received by adult co-plaintiffs and what
9 they have agreed to pay plaintiffs’ counsel.” Id. at 1182. “So long as the net recovery to each
10 minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery in similar cases,
11 the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the parties.” Id. Courts apply that

12 standard in cases involving both federal and state claims. See Doe ex rel. Scott v. Gill, No. C 11-
13 4759 CW, 2012 WL 1939612, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012).

14 Here, the Settlement Guardian ad Litem proposed two settlement allocations that would
15 award N.R. either 66.66 percent or 80 percent of the net settlement proceeds. Considering both
16 proposed allocations, without regard to the amount received by the adult co-plaintiffs, the Court
17 concludes that it is in the best interest of N.R. to receive 80 percent of the net settlement proceeds.

18 The Court further concludes this amount is fair and reasonable.

19 8. The net proceeds payable by Defendants for the benefit of the minor, N.R., shall be
20 funded via a Trust. This Trust will be managed by NW Trustee and Management Services in
21 accordance with the terms contained in Dkt. No. 392-2 .

22 9. The Legal Guardian of the minor, N.R., Megan F. Wabnitz (now Megan F. Tibbetts),
23 is authorized to sign all settlement agreements and releases on behalf of the minor, N.R. The
24

25 STIPULATED ORDER APPROVING MINOR

2 releases on behalf of the estate.

3 10. Confirmation of the funding of the Trust for the minor shall be confirmed by a filing
4 in the King County Superior Court estate action, cause no. 20-4-01303-7 SEA.

5 11. After the Trust is funded, the Settlement Guardian ad Litem is discharged from all
6 further duties.

7 DATED this 16th of January, 2026.

8

A

9

DAVID G. ESTUDILLO

United States District Judge

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 STIPULATED ORDER APPROVING MINOR