In the Matter of the Complaint of Star & Crescent Boat Co., dba Flagship Cruises & Events
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a Petition for Approval of Settlement and Compromise of Minors' Claims and a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation recommending approval. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted the Petition.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35) is adopted in its entirety.” | de novo | agree with court The order recites that the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Waive Objections Period. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent (e.g., Wang v. Masaitis), a district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of a Report and Recommendation when no party objects. By adopting the R&R in its entirety based on the waiver of objections, the court followed the correct procedural mechanism. |
Granting of the Petition for Approval of Settlement and Compromise of Minors' Claims“Minor Claimants’ Petition for Approval of Settlement and Compromise of Minors’ Claims (ECF No. 29) is granted.” | unclear | unsure The order does not explicitly state the substantive standard applied to the settlement (e.g., whether it is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minors). It relies entirely on the adoption of the Magistrate Judge's R&R. While the procedural adoption is correct, the order lacks the specific factual findings or legal analysis regarding the merits of the settlement itself, which are typically required for approval of minor settlements. However, since the R&R is adopted, the court implicitly accepts the Magistrate's findings. Without the text of the R&R, it is impossible to verify if the substantive standard was met, but the procedural act of granting the petition via adoption is standard practice when the R&R is unobjected to. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory and rule-based framework for reviewing a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It correctly notes that the parties waived the objection period, thereby relieving the district court of the duty to conduct a de novo review. The adoption of the R&R and the subsequent granting of the petition are consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent regarding unobjected-to R&Rs. The only gap is the lack of explicit substantive findings on the settlement's fairness, but this is often subsumed in the adoption of the R&R in such orders.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 STAR & CRESCENT BOAT CO., Case No.: 21-cv-00482-WQH-BLM a Nevada corporation, dba 11 FLAGSHIP CRUISES & ORDER 12 EVENTS, 13 Plaintiff-in-Limitation, 14 v. 15 L.M., J.M., and J.M., minors by and through their guardian ad litem, Elena 16 Martinez, 17 Minor Claimants. 18 HAYES, Judge: 19 The matters before the Court are the Petition for Approval of Settlement and 20 Compromise of Minors’ Claims filed by Elena Martinez, as Guardian ad Litem for Minor 21 Claimants L.M. (14-year-old), J.M.1 (11-year-old), and J.M.2 (7-year-old) (“Minor 22 Claimants”) (ECF No. 29), and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate 23 Judge (ECF No. 35) recommending that the Court grant the Petition for Approval of 24 Settlement and Compromise of Minors’ Claims. 25 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 26 magistrate judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 27 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions 28 1 || of the report... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 2 in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 3 ||636(b)(1). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a report and 4 ||recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 5 |{n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (th Cir. 2003) 6 || (en banc) (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Magistrates Act] requires a district Judge to 7 ||review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 8 || correct.’’). 9 The parties have filed a Joint Stipulation to Waive Objections Period, which waives 10 |/the 14-day objection period and requests that “the Court adopt the Report and 11 |}Recommendation without further delay.” (ECF No. 36). The Court has reviewed the 12 Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the parties. 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35) is 14 ||adopted in its entirety. Minor Claimants’ Petition for Approval of Settlement and 15 || Compromise of Minors’ Claims (ECF No. 29) is granted. 16 |} Dated: October 26, 2021 Nitta Ze. A a 17 Hon, William Q. Hayes 18 United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28