In re Luxury Jet Ski Rentals LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding a minor's compromise motion and motions to seal documents in a maritime negligence case. The court adopted the Report and granted the minor's compromise, while granting in part and denying in part the motions to seal, requiring the filing of redacted documents.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Because no objections were filed, the court was required to review the report for 'clear error on the face of the record.' The court found no such error and adopted the recommendation, which is procedurally sound under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. |
Granting of Claimants' Motion for Approval of Minor's Compromise“The Court GRANTS the Minor's Compromise Motion for M.F. [ECF No. 131 (SEALED)], as amended by the supplemental briefing [ECF No. 138 (SEALED)].” | unclear | agree with court The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant the motion. While the order does not explicitly state the 'best interests' standard analysis in the body of the order, it explicitly finds in the operative section that the compromise is in the best interest of the minor. This follows standard federal practice for approving settlements involving minors. |
Granting in part and denying in part Claimants' Applications for Leave to File Documents Under Seal“The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Claimants’ Motions to Seal [ECF Nos. 130, 137].” | unclear | agree with court The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to seal only specific portions of the documents. The order mandates that redacted versions be filed publicly with redactions limited to settlement amounts, while the full documents remain sealed. This is a common and legally sound approach to balancing the public's right to access court records with the need for confidentiality in settlement agreements, particularly those involving minors. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in the absence of objections (clear error). It applies this standard, finds no clear error, and adopts the report. The subsequent orders granting the minor's compromise and partially granting the motions to seal are consistent with the adopted report and standard legal principles regarding minor settlements and document sealing. The order is concise but contains all necessary elements for a valid ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 22cv2009-LL-JLB IN RE LUXURY JET SKI RENTALS 12 LLC ORDER: 13 (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 [ECF No. 139] 15 (2) GRANTING CLAIMANTS’ 16 MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF 17 MINOR’S COMPROMISE [ECF No. 131] 18 19 (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CLAIMANTS’ 20 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO 21 FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL [ECF Nos. 130, 137] 22 23 This matter originated under federal maritime law and involves claims of negligence 24 and gross negligence against Luxury Jet Ski Rentals, LLC. ECF No. 130-1 at 3.1 The parties 25 reached a settlement agreement, which includes a confidentiality clause, prohibiting 26 27 1 Citations to any docketed materials refer to the CM/ECF number printed on the top of 28 1 Claimants from publicly disseminating the terms of the compromise. Id. at 2. Claimants 2 filed a Notice of Unopposed Motion for Approval of Minor’s Compromise for M.F. 3 (“Minor’s Compromise Motion”) on October 30, 2024, and supplemental declarations on 4 December 9, 2024. ECF Nos. 131 (SEALED), 138 (SEALED). Claimants also filed a 5 Notice of Unopposed Application for Leave to File Documents Under Seal [ECF No. 130] 6 and an Application for Leave to File Supplemental Declarations of Noor Tashtosh and 7 Carlos F. Llinás-Negret Under Seal [ECF No. 137] (collectively “Motions to Seal”). The 8 Motions to Seal seek leave to seal the entirety of the Minor’s Compromise Motion, 9 including declarations. ECF Nos. 130-1, 137. 10 United Sates Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher issued a Report and 11 Recommendation (“Report”) recommending this Court (1) grant the Minor’s Compromise 12 Motion and (2) grant in part and deny in part the Motions to Seal. ECF No. 139. 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the district 14 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 15 district court judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to 16 which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 17 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see 18 also United States. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 19 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of a timely objection, the Court 20 “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 21 accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 22 Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206) (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States 23 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review 24 the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 25 otherwise.”). 26 Objections to the Report were due no later than January 14, 2025. ECF No. 139 27 at 8. To date, no objections have been filed and the time for doing so has expired. Having 28 reviewed the Report, the Court finds it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear | |/errors. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 2 || Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 3 1. The Court GRANTS the Minor’s Compromise Motion for M.F. [ECF 4 ||No. 131 (SEALED)], as amended by the supplemental briefing [ECF No. 138 (SEALED)]. 5 2. The compromise and terms of the settlement as set forth in the Minor’s 6 |}Compromise Motion are in the best interest of Claimant M.F., and the Minor’s 7 || Compromise Motion, as amended by the supplemental briefing, is approved. 8 3. The net proceeds to M.F. are to be deposited in an insured Bank of America 9 ||savings account in Albuquerque, New Mexico to be used for M.F.’s education. 10 4. The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Claimants’ 11 || Motions to Seal [ECF Nos. 130, 137]. 12 5. On or before April 15, 2025, Claimants must file a redacted version of the 13 ||Minor’s Compromise Motion and related exhibits and supplemental declarations on the 14 || public docket. The redactions must be limited to the settlement amounts. 15 6. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to maintain the documents at ECF 16 || Nos. 131 and 138 under seal. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: April 8, 2025 NO 19 QF | 20 Honorable Linda Lopez 51 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28