A.B. v. San Diego Family Housing, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) regarding a minor's settlement compromise, finding no clear error in the absence of objections. The court adopted the R&R, approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice, and denied a subsequent ex parte application as moot.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adopting the Report and Recommendation (R&R)“The Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 15)” | de novo | agree with court The order explicitly states that because no party objected to the R&R, the court reviewed it for 'clear error' rather than de novo. The court found no clear error. This application of the standard is correct under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). |
Granting Petition for Approval of Minor's Compromise“GRANTS Plaintiff's unopposed Petition for Approval (ECF No. 12); finds the proposed settlement be fair, reasonable, and in the minor’s best interest and therefore APPROVES it” | unclear | agree with court The court adopted the Magistrate's findings that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the minor's best interest. Given the unopposed nature and the adoption of the R&R, the decision follows logically from the record recited. |
Denying Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application as Moot“Plaintiff's Application (ECF No. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT.” | unclear | agree with court The court noted the application did not comply with Local Rule 83.3(g)(2) but denied it as moot because the main order resolved the litigation. Denying a motion as moot when the underlying issue is resolved by the same order is procedurally sound. |
Dismissing Action With Prejudice“DISMISSES this action in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE.” | unclear | agree with court Dismissal with prejudice is the standard consequence of approving a final settlement compromise for a minor, as it resolves all claims. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard of review (clear error due to lack of objection) and cites appropriate authorities (28 U.S.C. § 636, Raddatz, Remsing, Campbell). It incorporates the Magistrate's background and findings, which is permissible and efficient. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for an unopposed adoption of an R&R.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.B., a minor, by and through her Case No.: 24-CV-1391 JLS (DEB) guardian ad litem, NIA BAXTER, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 RECOMMENDATION; SAN DIEGO HOUSING, LLC, a limited 15 liability company; LMH MILITARY (2) GRANTING PETITION FOR 16 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LP, APPROVAL OF MINOR’S limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 17 COMPROMISE; 25, inclusive, 18 Defendants. (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 19 PARTE APPLICATION AS MOOT; AND 20 21 (4) DISMISSING ACTION 22 (ECF Nos. 12, 15, 18) 23 24 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Petition for Approval of Minor’s 25 Compromise of Plaintiff A.B. (“Pet.,” ECF No. 12). Subsequently, Magistrate Judge Jill 26 L. Burkhardt directed Plaintiff to file a supplemental declaration addressing its specific 27 liability challenges in this case. See ECF No. 13. In response, Plaintiff filed a Declaration 28 of Garratt May in Support of Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise of Plaintiff 1 A.B. (“May Decl.,” ECF No. 14). Thereafter, Judge Burkhardt issued a Report and 2 Recommendation advising the Court to grant Plaintiff’s Petition (“R&R,” ECF No. 15). 3 The Parties then filed a Joint Notice of Non-Opposition to the R&R. See ECF No. 16. 4 Having considered the Parties’ briefing, Judge Burkhardt’s Order and R&R, and the law, 5 the Court ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS the Petition. 6 BACKGROUND 7 Judge Burkhardt’s Order contains an accurate and thorough recitation of the relevant 8 background at issue. See R&R at 2. This Order incorporates by reference the background 9 as set forth therein. 10 LEGAL STANDARD 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 12 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court must “make 13 a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 14 recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in 15 whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 16 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); 17 United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of 18 timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face 19 of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory 20 committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). 21 ANALYSIS 22 Plaintiff seeks approval of the proposed settlement. See Pet. at 1. The R&R 23 concludes that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable under California and federal 24 law standards, the method of disbursement is reasonable and within the bounds of 25 applicable law, the attorneys’ fees requested are fair and reasonable, and Plaintiff’s 26 counsel’s costs are reasonable, and therefore recommends that the Court approve it. See 27 generally R&R. 28 No Party objects to the R&R. See ECF No. 16. The Court therefore reviews the 1 || R&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to approve 2 proposed settlement. 3 CONCLUSION 4 In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 15); GRANTS 5 || Plaintiff's unopposed Petition for Approval (ECF No. 12); finds the proposed settlement 6 be fair, reasonable, and in the minor’s best interest and therefore APPROVES it; and 7 || DISMISSES this action in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE.' 8 As this concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL 9 || CLOSE the file. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: April 29, 2025 . tt f te 12 on. Janis L. Sammartino 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' The Court notes Plaintiff has since filed an Ex Parte Application Requesting the Court to Sign the 27 || Minor’s Compromise Order. See ECF No. 18. Such Application does not appear to comply with the 9g || Local Rule 83.3(g)(2), which governs ex parte motions for orders. In any event, in light of the foregoing, Plaintiff's Application (ECF No. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT.