Guy v. Lorenzen
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) regarding a $100,000 settlement between a minor plaintiff and one defendant, finding no objections were filed. The court adopted the R&R, granted the motion for a good faith settlement determination, and approved a specific procedure for holding the funds in an interest-bearing account pending final resolution of the case.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15)“Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent (United States v. Reyna-Tapia), de novo review is required only if objections are filed. Since no objections were filed, the court was not required to conduct de novo review but chose to do so anyway, finding the R&R sound. The adoption is procedurally correct. |
Granting the Joint Motion for a Determination of Good Faith Settlement (ECF No. 7)“The parties’ Joint Motion for a Determination of Good Faith Settlement (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED.” | unclear | agree with court The court granted the motion based on the Magistrate Judge's finding that the settlement was in good faith under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6. The order recites that the Magistrate Judge made this finding and the court adopted the R&R. While the specific legal standard for 'good faith' under § 877.6 is not explicitly restated in the district court's own analysis (relying instead on the R&R), the adoption of the R&R incorporates that finding. The decision follows from the record recited. |
Approval of the proposed settlement procedure“The Court further APPROVES the following settlement procedure:” | unclear | agree with court The court approved a procedure requiring the settlement funds to be held in an interest-bearing account and not withdrawn without Magistrate Judge approval until the remaining claims are resolved. This is a common protective measure for minor plaintiffs to ensure funds are preserved for the minor's benefit. The court relied on the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that this was in the best interest of the plaintiff. The approval is consistent with the best interests of the minor and standard practice. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the lack of objections to the R&R, cites the correct Ninth Circuit authority (Reyna-Tapia) for the standard of review, and explicitly states that it conducted a de novo review regardless. The substantive decision to adopt the R&R and approve the settlement procedure is supported by the Magistrate Judge's findings, which the court found to be sound. There are no significant gaps or errors in the reasoning provided.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEOVANTE L. GUY, by and through Case No. 20-cv-2027-BAS-BLM Guardian Ad Litem for Deovante Guy, 12 Quintasia Walker, ORDER : 13 Plaintiff, (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 v. RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 15); 15 MATTHEW LORENZEN, et al., (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 16 Defendants. GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT (ECF 17 No. 7); AND 18 (3) APPROVING THE PROPOSED 19 SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE 21 22 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for a Determination of Good 23 Faith Settlement Between Plaintiff Deovante L. Guy, proceeding by and through guardian 24 ad litem Quintasia Walker, and Defendant Annie Brady. (ECF No. 7.) The Court 25 previously ordered the parties to submit their settlement for approval by United States 26 Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major under Local Civil Rule 17.1 and took the parties’ 27 motion under advisement. (ECF No. 8.) 28 1 On January 11, 2021, Judge Major issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 2 finding that the proposed $100,000 settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant Brady is 3 made in good faith and is suitable for the Court’s approval under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 4 § 877.6. (ECF No. 15 at 6.) Judge Major also considered Plaintiff’s proposal to delay the 5 distribution of the settlement, found that it is in the best interest of Mr. Guy to delay the 6 distribution, and recommended a pertinent settlement procedure for the Court’s approval. 7 (Id.) The deadline for the parties to object to the R&R was January 19, 2021. (Id.) To 8 date, no objections or requests for extension have been filed. 9 The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are made. 10 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 11 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. “The statute makes it 12 clear,” however, “that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 13 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna- 14 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “Neither the Constitution nor the 15 statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 16 parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is 17 well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 18 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a[n] R & R is only required when 19 an objection is made to the R & R.”) 20 Here, because no party has filed objections or requested additional time to do so 21 before the January 19, 2021 deadline, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. 22 See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of 23 the R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Major’s reasoning is sound and agrees with the 24 R&R’s recommendations. Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS 25 ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 26 The parties’ Joint Motion for a Determination of Good Faith Settlement (ECF No. 27 7) is GRANTED. The Court APPROVES the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant 28 Brady under section 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 1 The Court further APPROVES the following settlement procedure: 2 1. Plaintiff's counsel, attorney Tanisha Bostick, must deposit the entire 3 ||$100,000 settlement payment in an interest-bearing account within 14 days of receiving 4 || the payment; 5 2. Plaintiff's counsel must ensure that neither she nor anyone else withdraws any of 6 || the settlement money without the Magistrate Judge’s approval; and 7 3. Within thirty days after preliminary settlement with the remaining Defendants or 8 resolution of the remaining claims, Plaintiff’s counsel must file a motion seeking approval 9 || of the proposed settlement in accordance with Local Rule 17.1., California Probate Code 10 || section 3600, et seg., and related case law. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 ||DATED: January 27, 2021 Lin A (Ayphan 6 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28