Caballero v. San Diego Family Housing, LLC

Opinion

1 2 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VICTORIA CABALLERO, et al., Case No.: 22cv337 JM (AGS)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION; AND (2) APPROVING MINOR’S 14 SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC, COMPROMISE et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Confirm Minor’s Compromise.” 19 (Doc. No. 16). On September 9, 2022, Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Schopler issued a 20 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the court approve Plaintiffs’ 21 Motion (Doc. No. 22). Judge Schopler ordered that any objections to the R&R be filed 22 by September 23, 2022. Id. at 5. No timely objections have been filed. See Docket. 23 Having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion, Judge Schopler’s R&R, and the applicable law, the 24 court ADOPTS the R&R and APPROVES Plaintiffs’ Motion. 25 BACKGROUND 26 Judge Schopler’s Order contains an accurate and thorough recitation of the relevant 27 28 1 factual and procedural history in this case, as well as the terms of the proposed 2 settlement. R&R at 1–3. This Order incorporates by reference the background as set 3 forth therein. 4 LEGAL STANDARD 5 District courts have “a special duty” to “safeguard the interests of litigants who are 6 minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). In evaluating a 7 minor’s compromise, district courts should limit the scope of their review “to the 8 question of whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is 9 fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and 10 recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1182. “Most importantly, the district court should 11 evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the 12 proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ 13 counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. 14 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 17.1: 15 No action by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, or in 16 which a minor or incompetent has an interest, will be settled, compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or 17 terminated without court order or judgment. All settlements and 18 compromises must be reviewed by a magistrate judge before any order of approval will issue. 19 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 21 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court must 22 “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 23 findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or 24 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate 25 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–74 26 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 27 However, in the absence of timely objection, the court “need only satisfy itself that 28 there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” 1 ||Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee’s Note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 2 ||501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). 3 ANALYSIS 4 In this case, Judge Schopler’s R&R concluded the Parties’ proposed settlement 5 || was: (1) fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor children; (2) in line with 6 ||the settlements reached in similar cases; and (3) followed an appropriate distribution 7 ||{model. R&R at 5. As of the date of this Order, the court has received no objections to 8 ||the R&R. As no Party has objected, the court reviews the R&R for clear error and finds 9 |/none. Judge Schopler’s R&R is thorough, well-reasoned, and the compromise and 10 || settlement of the claims for minor Plaintiffs in this case is fair and reasonable. 11 CONCLUSION 12 In light of the foregoing, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R 13 ||(Doc. No. 22) in its entirety and APPROVES Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc. No. 16). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 3, 2022 Hah JE T. LER 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28