Castro v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NAHUM A. CASTRO, et. al., Case No.: 19-CV-02240-AJB-JLB Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER: v. 13 (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 14 JUDGE’S REPORT AND Defendants. RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 66); 15 and 16 (2) GRANTING MOTION TO 17 CONFIRM MINORS’ 18 COMPROMISES OF PENDING ACTION (Doc. Nos. 57, 58, 59) 19

20 This case involves an automobile collision which allegedly occurred when a U.S. 21 Customs and Border Protection agent failed to stop at a stop sign and struck Plaintiffs’ 22 vehicle with tremendous force. (See Doc. No. 66 at 2.) Plaintiffs B.R.C., E.D.C., and 23 N.R.C. are minors appearing by and through their mother and Court-appointed guardian 24 ad litem, Plaintiff Cindy G. Castro. (Id.) 25 Plaintiffs, a family of two parents and three minor children, filed this case in this 26 Court on November 24, 2019, against Defendants U.S. Customs and Border Protection 27 (“CBP”) and CBP Agent Juan Armando Peña (“Peña”) under the Federal Tort Claims Act 28 1 (“FTCA”). (Doc. No. 1.) On March 30, 2021, the Court dismissed Defendants CBP and 2 Peña without prejudice, finding the United States of America to be the only proper 3 defendant in an FTCA action. (Doc. No. 37 at 14.) Plaintiffs thereafter filed a Second 4 Amended Complaint in April 2021, naming the United States of America as a defendant 5 (“Defendant”). 6 The parties ultimately reached a settlement and on January 25, 2022, Minor 7 Plaintiffs’ guardian ad litem filed the instant petitions setting forth the terms of the 8 settlement. (Doc. Nos. 57–59.) On February 22, 2022, the Honorable Magistrate Judge 9 Burkhardt held a hearing to assist in evaluating the instant petitions. (Doc. Nos. 65, 66 at 10 3.) 11 On February 28, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation 12 (“R&R”) granting the petitions. (Doc. No. 66.) Defendant the United States filed a Notice 13 of Non-Opposition to the R&R on March 1, 2022. (Doc. No. 67.) 14 When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending 15 before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those 16 portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, 17 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United 19 States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is 20 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 21 in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note 22 to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. 23 denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 24 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate 25 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 26 Having thoroughly considered the R&R, as well as the terms of the proposed 27 settlement agreement, the Court determines the settlement of minors B.R.C., E.D.C., and 28 N.R.C.’s claims regarding their injuries resulting from the automobile collision is fair and 1 reasonable. See Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, 2 ||the Court ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions to confirm minors’ 3 || compromises of the pending action. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: March 30, 2022

8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28