Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHERI BATE and her child N.M., Case No.: 23cv1304-AGS (DEB) individually and on behalf of others 12 similarly situated, et al., REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR 13 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL 14 v. OF COMPROMISE [ECF NO. 125] 15 SECURLY, INC., 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Approval of 22 Compromise.1 (See ECF No. 125 (“Motion”).) This Report and Recommendation is 23 submitted to United States District Judge Andrew G. Schopler pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b)(1) and Civil Local Rule 17.1(a) of the United States District Court for the 25 Southern District of California. 26 27 2 RECOMMENDS that the District Judge GRANT the Motion. 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 A. Factual Background 5 This is a putative class action brought by Sheri Bate and Azucena Mejia on behalf 6 of their respective minor children, N.M. and A.S. (“Minor Plaintiffs”), against Securly, 7 Inc. (“Defendant”). (See generally Dkt.) The following facts are summarized from Minor 8 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) [ECF No. 25] and the instant Motion [ECF 9 No. 125]. Minor Plaintiffs were issued Chromebook® devices by their respective schools 10 for use as part of distance learning. (SAC at ¶¶ 28 & 34.) Unbeknownst to Minor 11 Plaintiffs, Defendant’s software had been installed on the Chromebook® devices. (Id. at 12 ¶¶ 29 & 35.) Minor Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s software tracked Minor Plaintiffs’ 13 geolocations, their web search terms, the websites they visited, and the videos they 14 watched. (Id.) Minor Plaintiffs further allege that the information above was “shared 15 with third parties in an effort in part to create targeted advertisements and marketing 16 campaigns, and for other undisclosed purposes.” (Id. at ¶¶ 30 & 36.) Minor Plaintiffs 17 claim this information was gathered without their knowledge or consent. (Id. at ¶¶ 31 18 & 37.) 19 B. Procedural History 20 On July 14, 2023, Minor Plaintiffs, by and through their respective parents, Sheri 21 Bate and Azucena Mejia, initiated this action against Defendant. (ECF No. 1.) On 22 September 6, 2024, Minor Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint. 23 (ECF No. 25.) In the SAC, Minor Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action against 24 Defendant: (1) Unlawful Wiretapping and Interception of Electronic Communications in 25 Violation of California Penal Code § 631; (2) Unlawful Use of Electronic Tracking Device 26 in Violation of California Penal Code § 637.7; (3) Violation of the California Computer 27 Data Access and Fraud Act [California Penal Code § 502]; (4) Use of a Pen Register or 2 Communications Act [18 U.S.C. § 2701]; (7) Violation of the Federal Wiretap Act [18 3 U.S.C. §§ 2511 and 2520]; (8) Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law 4 [California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.]; and (9) Intrusion Upon 5 Seclusion. (Id. at ¶¶ 189–298). On July 1, 2025, District Judge Schopler granted 6 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in part but permitted 7 Minor Plaintiffs’ claims under the California Information Privacy Act and the Federal 8 Wiretap Act, as well as Minor Plaintiffs’ Intrusion Upon Seclusion claim, to proceed. 9 (See ECF 44.) On July 29, 2025, Defendant filed an Answer to the SAC. (ECF No. 48.) 10 On May 1, 2026, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement. (ECF No. 119.) On May 11 6, 2026, this matter was assigned to the undersigned to fulfill the special duty of the 12 Court to safeguard the interests of minors. (See ECF No. 121.) On May 12, 2026, Minor 13 Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion. (ECF No. 125.) 14 C. Settlement Terms 15 Minor Plaintiffs, by and through their respective parents, Sheri Bate and Azucena 16 Mejia, have agreed to settle this matter with Defendant without trial pursuant to the 17 following terms. Defendant has agreed to pay to each of the Minor Plaintiffs 18 to settle their remaining claims. (Id. at 10.) As further consideration for the settlement, 19 Defendant has agreed to make certain modifications to its “Securly Trust and Safety 20 FAQs.” (Id.) The parties explain that each of the Minor Plaintiffs will receive the full 21 payment of separately and apart from any attorneys’ fees or litigation costs, 22 which are to be paid independently by Defendant. (Id. at 11.) Thus, there is no 23 reduction whatsoever to Minor Plaintiffs’ recovery for attorneys’ fees or litigation costs. 24 (Id.) As the result of separate negotiations, Defendant has agreed to pay as 25 reimbursement for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. (See ECF No. 125-2 at 3.) 26 The parties propose distribution of Minor Plaintiffs’ settlement funds by a single 27 payment in the amount of into the client trust account of Bursor & Fisher, 2 Civil Local Rule 17.1 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 3 California governs settlements in “action[s] by or on behalf of a minor.” See CivLR 4 17.1(a). Civil Local Rule 17.1 provides that “[n]o action by or on behalf of a minor . . . , 5 or in which a minor . . . has an interest, will be settled, compromised, voluntarily 6 discontinued, dismissed[,] or terminated without court order or judgment.” Id. Civil 7 Local Rule 17.1 further mandates that “[a]ll settlements and compromises must be 8 reviewed by a magistrate judge before any order of approval will issue.” Id. This rule 9 codifies the district courts’ “special duty to safeguard the interests of minor plaintiffs” in 10 the context of civil settlements. See Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th 11 Cir. 2011); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). The Ninth Circuit has held that this special duty 12 obliges the district court “to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the 13 settlement serves the best interest of the minor.’” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 (quoting 14 Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). Accordingly, a district court 15 “must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a 16 minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected . . . , even if the 17 settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad 18 litem.” Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) (citation 19 modified). 20 A district court reviewing the settlement of a minor plaintiff’s claim should “limit 21 the scope of [its] review to the question whether the net amount distributed to each 22 minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, 23 the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181– 24 82. Furthermore, “[a] district court should evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s 25 net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated 26 for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel” because the district court has no special duty 27 to safeguard their interests. Id. at 1182 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078). A district 2 recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. 3 The Ninth Circuit expressly limited its holding in Robidoux to “cases involving the 4 settlement of a minor’s federal claims.” See id. at 1179 n.2 (emphasis added). When a 5 settlement involves a minor’s state claims, the district courts have generally applied 6 state law in lieu of the Robidoux framework. See, e.g., DeRuyver v. Omni La Costa 7 Resort & Spa, LLC, No. 17-cv-0516-H-AGS, 2020 WL 563551, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 8 2020); J.T. v. Tehachapi Unified Sch. Dist., No. 16-cv-01492-DAD-JLT, 2019 WL 954783, at 9 *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2019); A.M.L. v. Cernaianu, LA CV12-06082 JAK (RZx), 2014 WL 10 12588992, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014). 11 Under California law, the court is tasked with evaluating the “reasonableness of 12 the settlement” and “whether the compromise is in the best interests of the minor.” 13 See A.M.L., 2014 WL 12588992, at *3; see also Pearson v. Superior Ct., 202 Cal. App. 4th 14 1333, 1340 (2012) (explaining that requiring court approval “allows the guardians of a 15 minor to effectively negotiate a settlement while at the same time protect[ing] the 16 minor’s interest”). The California Probate Code provides the applicable statutory 17 scheme for settlements involving minors. See generally Cal. Prob. Code §§ 3600–16. 18 Under the relevant provisions of the California Probate Code, courts have broad 19 discretion “to authorize payment from the settlement—to say who and what will be 20 paid from the minor’s money—as well as direct certain individuals to pay it.” Goldberg 21 v. Superior Ct., 23 Cal. App. 4th 1378, 1382 (1994) (discussing Cal. Prob. Code § 3601). 22 Because Minor Plaintiffs’ claims are brought under both federal and California 23 law, and to ensure all potentially relevant factors are considered, the Court will review 24 the settlement under both federal law (“fair and reasonable”) and state law (“best 25 interests”) standards. See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181; see also Anderson v. Latimer, 26 166 Cal. App. 3d 667, 676 (1985).

27 / / 2 A. The Settlement is Fair, Reasonable, and in Minor Plaintiffs’ Best Interests 3 As stated above, this Court focuses its review on “whether the net amount 4 distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the 5 facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” See 6 Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82. Additionally, California law emphasizes protecting “the 7 best interests of the minor.” Anderson, 166 Cal. App. 3d at 676. Accordingly, the Court 8 must assess whether Minor Plaintiffs’ net recovery of is fair, reasonable, and 9 in Minor Plaintiffs’ best interests. Based on the Court’s review of the record, the 10 Motion, and applicable state and federal law, the Court finds that it is. 11 The net settlement amount is , with each of the Minor Plaintiffs to 12 receive . (ECF No. 125 at 10.) The Motion includes numerous examples of 13 court-approved settlements in Southern, Northern, Eastern, and Central District of 14 California cases that resulted in lower net recoveries for the minor plaintiffs, as 15 compared to the proposed net recovery for Minor Plaintiffs here. (Id. at 11–12.) The 16 Court has reviewed these cases and performed its own independent review of cases 17 involving similar facts and finds that Minor Plaintiffs’ net recovery is appropriate under 18 the circumstances. See, e.g., Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., 951 F.3d 1106, 1114 (9th Cir. 19 2020) (affirming approval of a settlement in which the two named plaintiffs were 20 permitted to request an award not to exceed ). The Court’s review of analogous 21 settlements demonstrates that Minor Plaintiffs’ net recovery is fair and reasonable, 22 thereby satisfying the Robidoux standard. 23 Additionally, the settlement is in Minor Plaintiffs’ best interests because it 24 eliminates the cost, risk, and time commitment of pursuing the case through class action 25 certification and trial. The settlement provides Minor Plaintiffs with compensation 26 comparable to that obtained in similar actions and the certainty of recovery, rather than 27 the uncertainty of a jury verdict. Thus, this Court finds that Minor Plaintiffs’ net 2 The California Probate Code provides that expenses—including attorneys’ fees 3 and litigation costs—to be paid out of a settlement in which a minor has an interest 4 must be approved by the court. See Cal. Prob. Code §§ 3600–01; see also CivLR 17.1(a). 5 When counsel represents a minor on a contingency basis, attorneys’ fees are generally 6 limited to twenty-five percent of the gross recovery. See, e.g., Gonzalez, 2024 WL 7 1466784, at *3; D.C. v. Modesto City Schs., No. 22-cv-01481-HBK, 2023 WL 6060044, 8 at*5–*6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2023); L.P. v. Bella Mente Montessori Acad., No. 23-cv- 9 01166-LL-AHG, 2023 WL 4908833, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2023). To determine whether 10 attorneys’ fees are reasonable, the Court may consider factors including the 11 involvement and circumstances of the minor, the novelty and difficulty of the legal 12 services performed, the amount involved and the results obtained, the risk of loss borne 13 by counsel, and the informed consent of the minor’s representative to the fees. See Cal. 14 R. Ct. 7.955; see also Cal. Prob. Code § 3601. 15 As noted in the settlement terms, Minor Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and litigation 16 costs were negotiated separately and are to be paid separately by Defendant. (ECF No. 17 125 at 11.) Minor Plaintiffs’ counsel is to receive , completely independent 18 of the gross settlement proceeds. (ECF No. 125-2 at 3.) In an accompanying exhibit, 19 Minor Plaintiffs’ counsel provides a breakdown of the hours expended by each attorney 20 on this matter. (See ECF No. 125-3.) Based on the duration of this case, the 21 specialization required to represent minors in a case of this nature, the amount of work 22 performed by Minor Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the fact that attorneys’ fees are to be paid 23 independently by Defendant, the undersigned finds the requested attorneys’ fees to be 24 fair and reasonable and in Minor Plaintiffs’ best interests. 25 C. Disbursement of Settlement Funds 26 Civil Local Rule 17.1 requires that “[m]oney or property recovered by a minor . . .

27 California resident by settlement or judgment must be paid and disbursed in accordance 2 settlement funds. See Cal. Prob. Code §§ 3600–16. Here, the parties propose to 3 disburse the settlement funds as follows: “ each to [p]arent Sheri Bate and 4 [p]arent Azucena Mejia, for the benefit of their respective minor children N.M. and A.S. 5 . . . The [Minor] Plaintiffs’ Settlement Payment and the Payment to [Minor] Plaintiffs’ 6 Counsel shall be paid together in a single payment in the amount of 7 . . . into the client trust account of Burson & Fisher, P.A.” 8 (ECF No. 125-2 at 2–3.) 9 The proposed procedure for disbursement of the settlement funds is consistent 10 with the California Probate Code. Specifically, section 3611, subsection (f), provides that 11 “all or any part of the money and other property [may] be transferred to a custodian for 12 the benefit of the minor.” Cal. Prob. Code § 3611(f). Therefore, the Court approves of 13 the disbursement of settlement funds in the form of a single check for the lump sum of 14 , with to be paid to both Sheri Bate and Azucena Mejia as parents 15 of Minor Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the manner of distribution is fair, reasonable, 16 and in Minor Plaintiffs’ best interests. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds the proposed settlement to be a 19 fair and reasonable resolution of this case in the best interests of Minor Plaintiffs, under 20 both state and federal law. 21 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Court issue an Order: (1) 22 ADOPTING this Report and Recommendation and (2) GRANTING Plaintiffs’ Unopposed 23 Motion for Approval of Compromise [ECF No. 125]. 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), any party may file written objections with 25 the District Court and serve a copy on all parties on or before June 10, 2026. The 26 document should be captioned “Objection to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply 27 to the objections shall be served and filed on or before June 24, 2026. The parties are 1 || appeal the district court’s order. See Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2 || 1991). 3 The undersigned notes that the Motion in this case is unopposed. (See ECF No. 4 ||125.) Therefore, if all parties wish to waive the objections period, they should file a 5 stipulation to that effect immediately, to allow the District Court to consider this 6 ||Report and Recommendation without further delay. However, there shall be no 7 adverse consequences to any party who files objections or otherwise chooses not to 8 || waive the objections period. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ||Dated: May 27, 2026 = _ 2 FF D Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28