NeSmith v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) regarding an unopposed motion for approval of a minor's compromise and dismissal of claims. The court adopted the R&R, approved the Declaration of Trust, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of Report and Recommendation“The Court ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS the Motion.” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R. Because no party filed a timely objection to the R&R, the court was not required to conduct a de novo review of the specific findings but rather reviewed the R&R for clear error on the face of the record. The court explicitly stated it reviewed for clear error and found none, which is the correct procedural posture under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). |
Approval of Minor's Compromise and Declaration of Trust“finds the Declaration of Trust (ECF No. 232 Ex. 1) to be fair, reasonable, and in the minor’s best interest and therefore APPROVES it” | unclear | agree with court The court approved the settlement and trust based on the Magistrate Judge's finding that it was fair, reasonable, and in the minor's best interest. The record indicates that the initial issue regarding the trust's revocability (a compliance issue with Local Rule 17.1(b)(1)) was resolved by the plaintiffs modifying the trust to be revocable rather than automatically revoked. The court's adoption of the R&R implies acceptance of this resolution. While the order does not explicitly re-state the legal standard for approving minor's compromises (typically 'fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the minor'), the reliance on the R&R's conclusion and the lack of opposition supports the decision. |
Dismissal of Action“DISMISSES this action in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE.” | unclear | agree with court The dismissal with prejudice is a direct consequence of the approval of the minor's compromise. Since the settlement resolves the claims and the court approved the trust holding the settlement funds, dismissing the action with prejudice is the standard and appropriate procedural step to conclude the litigation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard of review for a magistrate judge's R&R in the absence of objections (clear error). It accurately recites the procedural history, including the Magistrate Judge's initial concern about the trust's revocability and the subsequent modification by the plaintiffs. The court's decision to adopt the R&R and approve the trust follows logically from the lack of objection and the resolution of the compliance issue. The dismissal with prejudice is appropriate given the approval of the settlement.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Chassidy NESMITH, individually and Case No.: 15-CV-629 JLS (AGS) as guardian ad litem on behalf of S.N., 12 ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT Plaintiffs, 13 AND RECOMMENDATION; v. (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 15 COMPROMISE; (3) APPROVING Defendants. DECLARATION OF TRUST; AND 16 (4) DISMISSING ACTION 17 18 (ECF Nos. 227, 233, 234) 19 20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Ex Parte Motion for Approval 21 of an Expedited Minor’s Compromise and Dismissal of Claims (“Mot.,” ECF No. 227), as 22 well as Defendants’ Notice of Non-Opposition thereto (ECF No. 229). Magistrate Judge 23 Andrew G. Schopler issued an Order Requiring Additional Briefing Concerning the 24 Minor’s Compromise (“Order,” ECF No. 231). In response, Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed 25 Supplement (ECF No. 232). Thereafter, Judge Schopler issued a Report and 26 Recommendation advising the Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion (“R&R,” ECF No. 233). 27 Defendants have filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the R&R (ECF No. 234). Having 28 / / / 1 considered the Parties’ briefing, Judge Schopler’s Order and R&R, and the law, the Court 2 ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS the Motion. 3 BACKGROUND 4 Judge Schopler’s Order contains an accurate and thorough recitation of the relevant 5 background, as well as the terms of the Declaration of Trust (ECF No. 232 Ex. 1) at issue. 6 See Order at 1–2. This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein. 7 Judge Schopler’s Order was “inclined to approve the settlement as fair and 8 reasonable,” but sought additional briefing in light of the Declaration of Trust’s failure to 9 comply with Civil Local Rule 17.1(b)(1) by making the trust automatically revoked, rather 10 than revocable, upon the minor’s attainment of the age of eighteen. Order at 4–5. 11 Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed their Supplement, informing the Court that the Declaration of 12 Trust had been modified to make it revocable rather than automatically revoked. See ECF 13 No. 232. The R&R followed. 14 LEGAL STANDARD 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 16 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court must “make 17 a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 18 recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in 19 whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United 21 States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely 22 objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 23 record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s 24 note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). 25 ANALYSIS 26 The Parties seek approval of the Declaration of Trust and dismissal of the action 27 with prejudice. See Mot. at 2. The R&R concludes that the Declaration of Trust is fair, 28 reasonable, and in the minor’s best interest, and therefore recommends that the Court 1 approve it. See generally R&R; Order. No Party objects to the R&R. See ECF No. 234. 2 Court therefore reviews the R&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the 3 || Court finds it appropriate to approve the Declaration of Trust. 4 CONCLUSION 5 In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 233); GRANTS 6 || Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 227); finds the Declaration of Trust (ECF No. 232 Ex. 1) to 7 |\be fair, reasonable, and in the minor’s best interest and therefore APPROVES it; and 8 DISMISSES this action in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE. As this concludes the 9 || litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: April 8, 2022 . tt f te 12 on. Janis L. Sammartino B United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28