Mia Young-Adeyeba, et al. v. Deep Shakti Singh, et al.

Case Number

25CV05399

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/21/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

(2) Petitions for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With A Disability

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiffs Mia Young-Adeyeba, individually and as the successor-in-interest to the Estate of Charles Adeyeba; Jordan Adeyeba and Jasmine Adeyeba, by and through their guardian ad litem Mia Young-Adeyeba: James Eashoo, Rochelle Rodriguez, Eashoo Law, PC

                                   

For Defendants: No Appearances

RULING

For the reasons stated herein, the petition for approval of compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for minor or person with a disability as to Plaintiff Jordan Adeyeba, by their guardian ad litem Mia Young-Adeyeba, and the petition for approval of compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for minor or person with a disability as to Jasmine Adeyeba, by their guardian ad litem Mia Young-Adeyeba, are each granted. No appearances are necessary.

Background

On August 27, 2025, Plaintiffs Mia Young-Adeyeba (M Adeyeba), individually and as the successor in interest to the Estate of Charles Adeyeba (C Adeyeba), Jordan Adeyeba (Jordan) and Jasmine Adeyeba (Jasmine), by and through M Adeyeba, their guardian ad litem (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed a complaint against Defendants Coast California Hospitality Management, LLC (Coast Management), Coast Hotels USA, Inc. (Coast Hotels), 306 W. Cabrillo Blvd., LLC (306 Cabrillo), West Beach Inn, A Coastal Hotel (WBI), and Deep Shakti Singh (Singh), alleging three causes of action: (1) wrongful death based on negligence; (2) negligence – survival action (by M Adeyeba as successor in interest to the Estate); and (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress – bystander (by Jordan and Jasmine). (Note: The Court refers to the minor parties by their first names to avoid confusion due to common familial surnames. No disrespect is intended.) As alleged in the complaint:

M Adeyeba is the husband of C Adeyeba. (Compl., ¶ 2.) Jordan and Jasmine are, respectively, the son and daughter of C Adeyeba. (Ibid.) Coast Hotels owns the West Beach Inn (the Inn), located at 306 W. Cabrillo Boulevard (the Property) in Santa Barbara, California. (Compl., ¶¶ 4, 6 & 15.) The Inn is managed by Coast Management. (Compl., ¶¶ 4-5.) The Property is owned by 306 Cabrillo. (Compl., ¶ 6.) WBI co-owns, controls, or manages the Inn. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Singh is an employee at the Inn. (Compl., ¶ 9.)

As Plaintiffs have not determined, as of the filing of the complaint, which of the named Defendants managed, co-managed, owned, or co-owned the Inn or the Property on July 6, 2024, Plaintiffs, and the Court in this proceeding, refer to Coast Hotels, Coast Management, 306 Cabrillo, and WBI as “Defendant Hotel”. (Compl., ¶ 8.)

On the night of July 6, 2024, C Adeyeba, Jordan, and Jasmine, while guests at the Inn, were in the pool area of the Inn when, according to Defendant Hotel, C Adeyeba entered, slipped, or fell into the deep end of the pool, and began to flounder around as if in distress. (Compl., ¶ 16.) This occurred in clear view of the Inn’s lobby and staff, during normal pool hours. (Ibid.) Jordan and Jasmine, who were in the shallow end of the pool or adjacent jacuzzi, yelled for help which got the attention of Singh, who came to their assistance. (Compl., ¶¶ 16-17.) When Singh arrived at the pool, C Adeyeba was at the surface, face down, and flailing. (Compl., ¶ 18.) There was no AED on hand, nor did Singh know what an AED was, and neither Singh nor anyone with Defendant Hotel called 911. (Compl., ¶¶ 17 & 21.)

Despite the presence of a poolside life preserver and rescue pole, Singh jumped into the pool with neither, and as a result, was unable to accomplish anything but swim back to the side of the pool and watch C Adeyeba sink to the bottom. (Compl., ¶ 18.) Sometime after, off-duty Alameda County Sheriff’s Deputy Gregory Harris (Deputy Harris) was passing by the Inn when he heard loud screaming and shouting coming from the pool area. (Compl., ¶ 20.) Upon entering the area, Deputy Harris saw Singh staring into the pool and C Adeyeba face down at the bottom of its deep end. (Ibid.)

By the time Deputy Harris pulled C Adeyeba from the pool, C Adeyeba had been submerged under water for several minutes. (Compl., ¶ 21.) Deputy Harris performed chest compressions until emergency responders arrived several minutes after they would have arrived had Defendant Hotel called 911 when it first became aware of C Adeyeba’s drowning. (Ibid.) Emergency medical personnel endeavored to revive C Adeyeba, who was transported to Cottage Hospital. (Compl., ¶ 22.) C Adeyeba was pronounced dead the following morning. (Ibid.) Jordan and Jasmine were present and witnessed firsthand their father’s drowning and the attempts to save him. (Compl., ¶ 23.)

On November 14, Plaintiffs filed a notice of conditional settlement of this case, and on November 18, filed an amended notice of conditional settlement stating that a request for dismissal will be filed no later than July 31, 2026.

On November 19, M Adeyeba (at times, “Petitioner”) separately filed two petitions for Court approval of a compromise of the claim or action by a minor (the Petitions), one on behalf of Jordan (the Jordan Petition) and the other on behalf of Jasmine (the Jasmine Petition). As the Petitions are, in substance, effectively identical or substantially similar in content, the Court will, where appropriate, refer or cite to the Petitions collectively. As stated in the Petitions:

Jasmine is presently 11 years of age, and Jordan is 14 years of age. M Adeyeba is the parent of Jasmine and Jordan, who currently reside in Los Angeles, California.

The Petitions describe an incident that occurred on July 7, 2024, where C Adeyeba was involved in a purportedly negligent drowning incident while a patron at the Inn, and which was witnessed by Jordan and Jasmine, who are the sole heirs of C Adeyeba. Each of the Petitions state that Jordan and Jasmine have sustained “significant emotional injuries, including but not limited to grief, trauma, and emotional distress resulting from witnessing [their] father’s drowning” and have “suffered the loss of [C Adeyeba’s] love, companionship, comfort, care, protection, moral support, guidance, and physical assistance.” (Pet., ¶¶ 6.) Neither Jordan nor Jasmine received any medical or psychological care or treatment for the injuries described in the Petitions, and each have recovered completely from the effects of those injuries. (Pet., ¶¶ 7-8 & Attachment 8.)

Petitioner asserts that they made a careful and diligent inquiry and investigation into the facts and circumstances of the incident or accident in which Jordan and Jasmine were injured, the responsibility for the incident or accident, and the nature, extent, and seriousness of Jordan and Jasmine’s injuries. Petitioner understands that if the compromises proposed in each of the Petitions are approved by the Court and consummated, Jordan and Jasmine will never be able to recover any more compensation from the settling Defendants (who are described in each of the Petitions as Defendant Hotel and Singh), even if their injuries turn out to be more serious than they now appear. (Pet., ¶¶ 9 & 10(b).)

To settle the claims described in the Petitions, Defendant Hotel and Singh (collectively, Defendants) have offered to pay, separately, the amount of $630,000 to Jordan, and the amount of $630,000 to Jasmine. (Jordan Pet., ¶ 10(a)-(b); Jasmine Pet. [same].) The funds to be paid separately to Jordan and Jasmine will be placed into an annuity approved by the Court. (Pet., ¶¶ 10(c).)

Petitioner is a Plaintiff in this action and has a claim against the recovery of Jordan and Jasmine other than for reimbursement of fees or expenses paid by Petitioner and listed in the Petition. (Pet., ¶¶ 11(b)(2) & (3).) Petitioner will receive the amount of $2,340,000 under the proposed settlement. (Pet., ¶¶ 11(b)(4)-(5).)

The circumstances and effect of Petitioner’s claim, and its disposition, on the proposed compromises described in the Petitions, are that Petitioner is the surviving spouse of C Adeyeba, and the mother of Jasmine and Jordan, who, through counsel, represents herself and the minors in connection with the wrongful death claim. (Pet., Attachments 11b(2) & 11b(3).) Petitioner explains that Defendants have extended a global settlement offer which totals $3,600,000, and which Petitioner has accepted on behalf of all heirs. (Ibid.) Pursuant to the agreed distribution, Petitioner will receive $2,340,000, and Jasmine and Jordan will each receive the amounts described above. (Ibid.) Petitioner has agreed that all litigation costs, which total approximately $21,952.72, will be paid solely from Petitioner’s portion of the settlement, ensuring that recoveries of Jordan and Jasmine are not diminished. (Ibid.)

Petitioner further explains that a larger portion of the settlement has been allocated to Petitioner, as C Adeyeba’s surviving spouse, because Petitioner bears the sole financial, physical, and emotional responsibility for the care and upbringing of the minor children following C Adeyeba’s death. (Pet., Attachments 11b(6).) The allocation described in the Petitions will enable Petitioner to continue to provide for Jordan and Jasmine’s daily needs, education, housing, and overall well-being, in a manner consistent with the standard of living the family maintained when C Adeyeba was alive. (Ibid.) As the surviving spouse, Petitioner has also suffered the loss of C Adeyeba’s love, companionship, comfort, care, protection, moral support, guidance, and physical assistance. (Ibid.)

Further, the net settlement proceeds to be paid to Jordan and Jasmine will each be used to purchase structured annuities, subject to the Court’s approval, which will be paid out as follows: (1) to Jasmine: a total guaranteed payout of $1,779,350.40 and a total expected payout of $2,253,492; and (2) to Jordan: a total guaranteed payout of $1,487.404.80 and a total expected payout of $1,815,644. (Pet., Attachments 11b(2) & 11b(3).) Petitioner asserts that this proposed compromise and distribution are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minors, taking into account the nature of the claims, the risks of continued litigation, and the needs of the minor beneficiaries. (Ibid.) Petitioner also states that no allocation or payment shall be made unless and until the Court issues an order approving the proposed compromise and distribution for both Jordan and Jasmine. (Ibid.)

The total amount of attorney’s fees for which Court approval is requested is $189,000. (Pet., ¶¶ 13(a).) A declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, James Eashoo (attorney Eashoo), is attached to each of the Petitions. (Pet., Attachments 13a (Eashoo Dec.].) In that declaration, Eashoo describes their education, and experience in wrongful death cases such as the present action. (Id. at ¶¶ 2-3 & 26-28.)

Attorney Eashoo states that at the time of the incident, Jordan and Jasmine were, respectively, 13 and 9 years of age and required an attorney given the complexity and serious nature of this case, which attorney Eashoo asserts was difficult from the outset because the insurance carrier for Defendants took the position, which was supported by witness information, that C Adeyeba presented himself in an ill state when checking into the Inn which required Jordan to complete the check in; that C Adeyeba was at fault because he was not feeling well and was a poor swimmer and nevertheless went into the deep end of the pool; that the Inn’s staff had no duty to rescue C Adeyeba; and that any failed rescue efforts were protected under the “Good Samaritan doctrine”. (Pet., Attachments 13a [Eashoo Dec.], ¶¶ 4, 14 & 18.) Attorney Eashoo asserts that if these matters were believed by a jury, it could have resulted in zero liability for Defendants. (Ibid.)

Attorney Eashoo also states that they were retained by Jordan and Jasmine’s parent on August 10, 2024, in connection with the loss resulting from the death of C. Adeyeba. (Pet., Attachments 13a [Eashoo Dec.], ¶ 24.) At the time of retention, M Adeyeba was fully informed of the terms of the attorney-client relationship and fee arrangement, and reviewed and signed a written retainer agreement which includes a contingency fee structure. (Id. at ¶ 33.) A copy of an “Agreement For Legal Services” (the Retainer) ostensibly signed by M. Adeyeba on August 10, 2024, is included with the Petitions. (Pet., Attachments 17a.)

Pursuant to the Retainer, M Adeyeba agreed that Eashoo Law may retain or claim 33 and one-third percent of the total recovery of any and all monies or other compensation which may be paid or become due in settlement before a complaint is filed, and that in the event a complaint is filed, Eashoo Law may retain or claim 40 percent of the verdict, award, or recovery if suit is filed, regardless of whether the case proceeds to trial. (Pet., Attachments 17a at pdf p. 27.) M Adeyeba further agreed that Eashoo Law would advance costs and expenses to perform legal services under the Retainer, and that M Adeyeba would pay for those costs and expenses in addition to the contingency fee described in the Retainer and above. (Id. at pdf p. 38.)

Attorney Eashoo further states that Petitioner expressed a strong desire to avoid litigation due to the severe emotional trauma it would impose on Jordan and Jasmine by having to relive the night their father died. (Pet., Attachments 13a [Eashoo Dec.], ¶ 22.) Attorney Eashoo asserts that this instruction significantly limited the available time and strategic options ordinarily used to increase settlement leverage, and that to work within these parameters, attorney Eashoo was required to develop and present a compelling liability and damages case during the pre-litigation phase and without ability to conduct formal discovery. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-23. )

To counter the defenses described by attorney Eashoo and above, and to overcome liability issues, Eashoo retained, early in this action, a pool and safety expert to perform a full investigation which included visiting the scene of the loss, in order to fully evaluate the area. (Pet., Attachments 13a [Eashoo Dec.], ¶¶ 6 & 15.) That expert rendered an opinion that there may have been slopping issues near the depth runoff of the pool, that the texture of the surrounding pool area surface may have been inadequate, and that in the event of an emergency, the first thing to be done is to call 911. (Ibid.)

Attorney Eashoo also retained a hotel hospitality expert to provide an opinion as to the custom and care of hotel practices generally and in situations such as the incident that occurred in this case, and as to proper hotel employee training, policy and procedure, and customary procedures during emergency situations. (Pet., Attachments 13a [Eashoo Dec.], ¶ 7. )

In addition to attacking the Police Department Coroner Report and Defendants’ position regarding the drowning of C Adeyeba, attorney Eashoo personally inspected the scene of the incident; expended hundreds of hours to research applicable law regarding the duty to rescue and responsibility of innkeepers; submitted public records requests of various police, fire, city building and safety, and city health department agencies. (Pet., Attachments 13a [Eashoo Dec.], ¶¶ 8 & 16.) As a result, attorney Eashoo was able to effectively argue that Defendants should have called 911 immediately, which could have potentially led to the successful rescue of C Adeyeba. (Ibid.) Attorney Eashoo further states that Defendants disputed and denied these allegations and any responsibility. (Ibid.)

Attorney Eashoo explains that the parties participated in a full day, in person mediation with attorney Sean M. Burke, and that despite extensive efforts, the matter did not settle. (Pet., Attachments 13a [Eashoo Dec.], ¶ 5.) Over the course of several weeks, and as the result of email exchanges of competing case law, subsequent phone calls, the work of attorney Eashoo detailed above, and the filing of this lawsuit, attorney Eashoo was able to settle the wrongful death claim for a total of $3,600,000, which attorney Eashoo contends is a very good settlement given the disputed nature of the claims and the potential for an adverse ruling, and the avoidance of several years of protracted litigation. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 9 & 16.)

During his representation of Plaintiffs, attorney Eashoo has managed all aspects of this case from initial investigation through expert retention, negotiation, settlement, and the preparation of the Petitions. (Pet., Attachments 13a [Eashoo Dec.], ¶ 24.) Attorney Eashoo further asserts that he maintained consistent and transparent communication with the family, keeping them informed of developments, legal strategy, and settlement discussions. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Attorney Eashoo also undertook the task of facilitating an annuity structure by assisting in the retention of KAAS Settlement Consulting to maximize the recovery of Jasmine and Jordan upon reaching legal age. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

Noted above, this matter, which did not preclude attorney Eashoo from accepting other employment, involved a continency fee arrangement of one-third if the matter was resolved without the filing of a lawsuit, or 40 percent if the matter required litigation. (Pet., Attachments 13a [Eashoo Dec.], ¶ 39.) As to Jasmine’s claim, attorney Eashoo has unilaterally reduced their fees by approximately $63,000. (Id. at ¶¶ 10 & 39. ) As to Jordan’s claim, attorney Eashoo has reduced their fees by the same amount. (Id. at ¶ 11.) As to M Adeyeba’s claim, attorney Eashoo has reduced their fees by approximately $156,000. (Id. at ¶ 13.) In addition, attorney Eashoo personally advanced all necessary costs. (Id. at ¶ 41.)

There are no additional items of expense which were incurred or which will be paid out of the settlement proceeds. (Pet., ¶¶ 13(b).) None of the attorney’s fees listed in item 13 for which reimbursement is requested have been paid by Petitioner. (Pet., ¶¶ 14(a).)

The net balance of the proceeds for Jordan (item no. 15) is $441,000. The Summary section of the Jordan Petition (item no. 16) lists gross settlement proceeds of $630,000 from which attorney’s fees totaling $189,000 will be deducted, resulting in a balance of $441,000. The same information and calculation appears in item nos. 15 and 16 of the Jasmine Petition.

Noted above, Petitioner has been represented by attorney Eashoo and Eashoo Law in preparing the Petitions. The Retainer described above and attached to each of the Petitions is the agreement for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the Petitions.

Attorney Eashoo has not received attorney’s fees or other compensation in addition to that requested in the Petitions, for services provided in connection with the claims giving rise to the Petitions, and did not become concerned with this matter, directly or indirectly, at the instance of a party against whom the claims are asserted or a party’s insurance carrier. Attorney Eashoo also is not representing or employed by any other party or insurance carrier involved in the matter. Attorney Eashoo does expect to receive attorney’s fees from M Adeyeba in January 2026, in the amount of $780,000, in addition to those requested in the Petitions, for services provided in connection with the claims giving rise to the Petitions.

There is no guardianship or conservator of the estates of Jordan or Jasmine. Petitioner requests that the Court order the disposition of the balance of the proceeds of settlement, each in the amount of $441,000, to be invested in single-premium deferred annuities, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court. (Pet., ¶¶ 18(b)(3) & Attachments 18b(3).)

A letter from KAAS Settlement Consulting (KAAS) dated November 13, 2025, and attached to the Jordan Petition states that the structured settlement payment streams to Jordan were split among two life insurance companies, Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and Pacific Life Insurance Company (Pacific Life), each of which are rated A+XV by A.M. Best. (Jordan Pet., Attachment 8b(3). ) The MetLife annuity guarantees a payout to Jordan of $444,000, and the Pacific Life annuity guarantees a payout of $1,043,404.80, with an expected payout of $1,371,644. (Ibid.) The terms and conditions of each annuity, and their future periodic payments, are specified in Attachment 18b(3) to the Jordan Petition.

A letter from KAAS also dated November 13, 2025, is attached to the Jasmine Petition, and similarly states that the structured settlement payment streams to Jasmine were also split among MetLife and Pacific Life. (Jasmine Pet., Attachment 8b(3). ) The MetLife annuity guarantees a payout to Jasmine of $594,000, and the Pacific Life annuity guarantees a payout of $1,185,350.40, with an expected payout of $1,659,492. (Ibid.) The terms and conditions of these annuities, and their future periodic payments, are also specified in Attachment 18b(3) to the Jasmine Petition.

Analysis

“A petition for Court approval of a compromise or covenant not to sue under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with rules 7.950 or 7.950.5, 7.951, and 7.952.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1384(a).) The petition “must be verified by the Petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing on the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition. Except as provided in rule 7.950.5, the petition must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)

If the Petitioner has been represented by an attorney in preparing the petition, the petition must disclose the information identified in California Rules of Court, rule 7.951(1) through (6). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.951.) In addition, “[t]he person petitioning for approval of the compromise of the claim on behalf of the minor or person with a disability and the minor or person with a disability must attend the hearing on the petition unless the Court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.952.) 

Relevant here, “[w]hen a minor ... is a party, that person shall appear either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the Court in which the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in each case.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 372, subd. (a)(1).) “The purpose of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 372 is to protect the minor involved in litigation by adding an extra layer of scrutiny to the settlement of the minor’s claims. This statute is a ‘shield’ to protect the interests of a minor.” (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1339.) Further, “[a] guardian ad litem appointed to represent a minor can, with the approval of the Court in which the action is pending, compromise the minor’s claims.” (Barnes v. Western Heritage Ins. Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 249, 256.)

The Petitions appear complete, and are submitted on a form approved by the Judicial Council of California. The Court’s review of the Eashoo declaration described above also shows that declaration discloses the information required by California Rules of Court, rule 7.951. For these reasons, the Court finds that the Petitions are procedurally appropriate.

The Court has reviewed each of the Petitions and their attached documentation, including the Eashoo declaration described above, and attachments 8, 11b(2)-(6), 13a, 17a, and 18b(3) of each of the Petitions. The available information and evidence shows that, though Jordan and Jasmine did not receive any care or treatment for the injuries described in items 6 of the Petitions, each has recovered completely from the effects of those injuries. There is also no evidence or information to show or suggest the existence of any permanent injuries.

Furthermore, the Court finds that the amounts of $630,000 which Defendants have offered to pay each and separately to Jordan and Jasmine to settle their claims, and which will be used to fund the annuities further described above, is both reasonable and appropriate, and in both Jordan and Jasmine’s best interests. The Court further finds that the hours expended, and attorney’s fees incurred, to investigate, prosecute, and settle the respective claims of Jordan and Jasmine, and described above, are reasonable and appropriate under the totality of the circumstances present here. For these and all further reasons described above, each of the Petitions will be granted.

The Court has reviewed the proposed orders submitted by Petitioner and intends to sign them. In addition, and for good cause shown, no appearances are necessary at the hearing on the Petitions.