G.C. v. San Diego Unified School District
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation approving a settlement in a civil action. The court adopted the R&R, granted the plaintiff's motion to approve settlement, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of Report and Recommendation (ECF 15)“Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF 15) in full and incorporates it into this Order.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the de novo standard of review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent (United States v. Reyna-Tapia) for reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, even in the absence of objections. The court found the R&R thorough and well-reasoned, making adoption appropriate. |
Granting of Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Settlement (ECF 14)“The settlement is approved. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (ECF 12) and motion to approve settlement (ECF 14).” | unclear | agree with court The court relied on the Magistrate Judge's determination that the settlement was fair and reasonable. While the order cites authorities regarding the dismissal and settlement approval, it does not explicitly state the specific standard of review for the settlement approval itself (e.g., whether it was a class action requiring Rule 23(e) review or a private settlement). However, given the adoption of the R&R which made this determination, the result is defensible based on the record provided. |
Granting of Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 12)“The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (ECF 12)... Pursuant to the settlement agreement, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” | unclear | agree with court The dismissal with prejudice is a direct consequence of the approved settlement agreement. The court correctly cites Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for the dismissal. The decision follows logically from the approval of the settlement. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the de novo standard of review for the R&R and cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Reyna-Tapia) for that standard. It adopts the R&R and grants the motions based on the settlement. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine adoption of an R&R approving a settlement.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 G.C., an individual, Case No.: 3:21-cv-19-L-BGS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION (ECF 15) AND 14 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 15 DISTRICT, TO DISMISS (ECFs 12 & 14). 16 Defendant. 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and motion to approve 18 settlement. (ECFs 12 and 14). 19 On August 17, 2021, Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a Report and 20 Recommendation for an order approving the settlement. (ECF 15). The deadline to file an 21 objection to the Report and Recommendation was August 31, 2021. Id.1 No party filed an 22 objection. (See Docket). 23 24 25 26 27 1 Defendants have not filed an appearance in this matter. (See Docket). Linda Clark is Plaintiff’s 28 l Judge Skomal determined the proposed settlement — $108,500 — is fair and 2 ||reasonable. (ECF 15). The settlement provides that Plaintiff shall receive $89,000. Id. 3 || Plaintiff's counsel shall receive $19,500 as compensation. Jd. 4 The Court reviewed the Report and Recommendation.’ It is thorough and well- 5 ||reasoned. The Court agrees with Judge Skomal’s legal and factual determinations. 6 || Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF 15) in full and 7 incorporates it into this Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. The settlement is approved. The 8 || Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (ECF 12) and motion to approve settlement 9 || (ECF 14). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c); Civ. L. R. 17.1; Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 10 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 2014). 11 || Pursuant to the settlement agreement, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 12 || See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: September 3, 2021 fee Soop 16 H . James Lorenz, 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Although there is no objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-1122 (9th Cir. 2003).