Benavidez v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an unopposed petition and a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) seeking approval of a settlement involving minor plaintiffs. The court adopted the R&R, granted the petition to approve the settlement, and ordered the parties to jointly move to dismiss the case by April 18, 2022.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and granted the petition to approve the settlement for the minor plaintiffs.“Accordingly, Court ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS the petition to approve J.C.B.’s and A.J.B.’s interests in the settlement of this case.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for an unopposed R&R. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), when no timely objections are filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record. The court explicitly found no clear error and adopted the recommendation, which is procedurally and substantively correct. |
Ordered the parties to jointly move to dismiss the case on or before April 18, 2022.“It is further ORDERED that the parties shall jointly move to dismiss this case on or before April 18, 2022.” | unclear | agree with court This is a standard procedural directive following the approval of a settlement to ensure the case is formally closed. It is a reasonable and common administrative order in this context. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for an unopposed R&R (clear error on the face of the record) and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Reyna-Tapia and Campbell) to support that standard. The court explicitly states it reviewed the record and found no clear error, satisfying the legal requirements for adopting the R&R. The directive to move to dismiss is a standard procedural step.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN BENAVIDEZ, HEATHER Case No.: 3:18-cv-0558-CAB-(AGS) BENAVIDEZ, J.C.B. a minor, and A.J.B. 12 a minor, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE Plaintiffs, MINORS’ SETTLEMENT 14 v. 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO et al., [Doc. Nos. 52, 54] 16 Defendants. 17 18 Petitioners John and Heather Benavidez, parents of Plaintiffs J.C.B. and A.J.B., who 19 are minors, seek the Court’s approval of J.C.B.’s and A.J.B.’s interests in a settlement of 20 this action. [Doc. No. 52.] Their petition is unopposed. Magistrate Judge Andrew G. 21 Schopler has filed a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that the Court approve the 22 settlement. [Doc. No. 54.] Judge Schopler’s R&R set a deadline of February 28, 2022, for 23 any objections to be filed. No objections were filed. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the district 25 court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district 26 court judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s 27 findings and recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 28 1 ||Section 636 “makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s 2 || findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise. . . . Neither 3 ||the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 4 ||recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” United States v. Reyna- 5 || Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). “When no timely 6 || objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of 7 || the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s 8 (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). 9 Here, upon review of the petition for approval and supporting documents, along with 10 || the entire record in this case, the Court is satisfied that approval of the settlement with 11 |/respect to the minor plaintiffs is warranted, and that there is no clear error on the face of 12 || the record or in Judge Schopler’s R&R that the Court approve the settlement. Accordingly, 13 Court ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS the petition to approve J.C.B.’s and A.J.B.’s 14 ||interests in the settlement of this case. J.C.B.’s and A.J.B.’s shares of the settlement shall 15 || be distributed as described in the petition [Doc. No. 52 at J 17] and declaration of Plaintiffs’ 16 counsel [Doc. No. 52-1 at § 28]. 17 It is further ORDERED that the parties shall jointly move to dismiss this case on or 18 || before April 18, 2022. 19 It is SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: March 2, 2022 € ZL 21 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28