E.P.E., et al. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding the approval of a trust for minor plaintiffs and the settlement of their claims, finding no objections were filed. The court adopted the report and recommendation and granted the plaintiffs' motions, establishing specific terms for a pooled minor's trust administered by Legacy Enhancement Trust.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“So, the Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and 9th Circuit precedent, a district judge must review the R&R de novo if objections are filed, but may review for clear error if no objections are filed. The order states that no party objected, yet the court cites *Reyna-Tapia* for the proposition that review is de novo *if* objection is made, but not otherwise. The court then states it reviewed the R&R and found it 'well reasoned and without any clear error.' This phrasing suggests the court applied the clear error standard (or a hybrid) because no objections were filed, which is procedurally correct. The citation to *Reyna-Tapia* supports the conditional nature of the review standard. The decision to adopt is supported by the lack of objections and the court's own review. |
Granting Plaintiffs' Motions for Approval of Terms of Trust and Settlement“Plaintiffs’ motions for approval of the minor plaintiffs’ terms of trust and the settlement of the minors’ claims are GRANTED.” | unclear | unsure The order does not explicitly state the standard of review for the underlying motions (approval of trust terms and settlement). Typically, approval of a settlement involving minors is reviewed for reasonableness and best interests of the minor. The court adopts the magistrate's recommendation, which presumably applied the correct standard. Since the order does not recite the specific legal standard for the settlement approval itself, only the standard for reviewing the R&R, the standard for the underlying motion is 'unclear' from the text of this order alone. However, the result (granting) is consistent with the adoption of the R&R. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the lack of objections to the magistrate's R&R. It cites the correct 9th Circuit authority (*Reyna-Tapia*) for the standard of review of the R&R. The court states it reviewed the R&R and found no clear error, which aligns with the standard applied when no objections are filed. The specific terms of the trust are detailed, providing a clear record for any future review. The only minor gap is that the order does not explicitly state the substantive legal standard used to evaluate the *merits* of the settlement and trust terms (e.g., 'best interests of the minor'), relying instead on the adoption of the magistrate's reasoning. However, this is common in adoption orders.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 E.P.E., et al., Case No.: 24-cv-0312-AGS-MSB 5 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND Plaintiffs, 6 RECOMMENDATION (ECF 57) AND v. GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 7 MOTIONS FOR APPROVAL OF 8 (1) TERMS OF TRUST FOR MINOR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFFS (ECF 52) AND 9 Defendant. (2) SETTLEMENT OF MINORS’ 10 CLAIMS (ECF 53) 11 12 Earlier this year, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation urging 13 this Court to grant plaintiffs’ motions for approval of the (1) terms of trust for the minor 14 plaintiffs and (2) settlement of the minors’ claims. (See ECF 57 (recommending that the 15 Court grant ECF 52 & 53).) District judges “must review the magistrate judge’s findings 16 and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. 17 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up); see also 18 U.S.C. 18 § 636(b)). Objections were due “February 6, 2026” (ECF 57, at 9), and, to date, no party 19 has objected. This Court reviewed the report and recommendation and finds that it is well 20 reasoned and without any clear error. So, the Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report 21 and recommendation. Plaintiffs’ motions for approval of the minor plaintiffs’ terms of trust 22 and the settlement of the minors’ claims are GRANTED. Specifically, the Court orders as 23 follows: 24 1. The settlement funds for minor plaintiffs E.E.B.P., E.M.M., B.Y.C.G., and 25 A.L.T.J.P. must be placed in a pooled minor’s trust administered by the nonprofit 26 Legacy Enhancement Trust, the primary purpose of which is to protect each minor 27 plaintiff from the loss of trust assets due to undue influence, misuse, or exploitation 28 by others; l 2. Distribution of trust funds must be overseen by a fiduciary trustee at Legacy 2 Enhancement Trust; 3 3. The trust terminates when each minor plaintiff reaches the age of 18; 4 4. While the trust is in place, the trustee will make distributions for the use and benefit 5 of the minor plaintiffs for expenses that are not provided by or available from 6 another source; 7 5. No distribution of trust funds will discharge the plaintiff mothers’ legal obligation 8 to support minor plaintiffs in accordance with state law; 9 6. Permissible distributions include, but are not limited to, expenses related to 10 education, health care, and technology; 11 7. Absent extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving imminent health or 12 safety risks, the trustee will not distribute trust funds for items categorized as 13 parental support (e.g., rent, mortgage, or utility payments), or for alcohol, 14 cigarettes, bail, or bank overdrafts; 15 8. Any funds remaining when the trust terminates must be released in full to each 16 minor plaintiff; 17 9. The cost to administer the trust will consist of only an initial enrollment fee of 18 $1,500.00 and an annual administrative fee of 1.95% of the amount in the trust at 19 the previous year’s end; 20 10. No bond shall be required given that the full amount of each minor □□□□□□□□□□□ 21 settlement proceeds, less attorneys’ fees, will be placed in the trust and 22 administered by Legacy Enhancement Trust. 23 || Dated: March 10, 2026 5 Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 26 27 28 2 a ee