A.W. v. Piedmont Unified School District

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 A. W., Case No. 24-cv-06230-TSH 7 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 8 v. DISMISSAL 9 PIEDMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL Re: Dkt. No. 23 DISTRICT, 10 Defendant. 11 a 12 A Request for Dismissal has been filed by Plaintiff A. W. ECF No. 23. However, there

& 13 || are two issues with Plaintiff’s request. First, “District courts have a special duty, derived from

v 14 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.”

15 || Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). “In the context of proposed 16 || settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct

17 || its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.’” Jd.

Zz 18 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). Thus, prior to seeking 19 || dismissal, Plaintiff must file a motion to compromise A.W.’s claims, addressing whether the terms 20 || of the parties’ settlement are fair and reasonable. Second, as Defendant has filed an answer (ECF 21 No. 10), dismissal would only proper only by a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule 22 of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i1) signed by all parties who have appeared or a motion for 23 dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). 24 Accordingly, Plaintiffs request for dismissal is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: April 29, 2025 27 TAA. |} □□ THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge