Demir v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J.D., a minor, by and through her Case No.: 3:22-cv-01124-RBM-BLM Guardian Ad Litem, Emine Demire; and 12 ALI DEMIR, an individual, ORDER: 13 Plaintiffs, (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 v. RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 16); 15 COSTCO WHOLESALE (2) GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION 16 CORPORATION, a Washington TO CONFIRM MINOR’S corporation, and DOES 1 through 30, 17 COMPROMISE (Doc. 11); Defendants. 18 (3) GRANTING JOINT 19 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO CONFIRM MINOR’S 20 COMPROMISE (Doc. 13); AND 21

22 [Docs. 11, 13, 16] 23 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 On November 4, 2022, Plaintiff J.D., a minor by and through her Guardian Ad 26 Litem, Emine Demire, and Ali Demir (“Plaintiffs”) filed an Ex Parte Motion to Confirm 27 Minor’s Compromise (“Ex Parte Motion”). (Doc. 11.) On November 7, 2022, Magistrate 28 Judge David D. Leshner (“Judge Leshner”) issued an order requiring Plaintiffs to 1 supplement the Ex Parte Motion. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiffs and Defendant Costco Wholesale 2 Corporation (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) filed a Joint Supplemental Ex Parte 3 Motion to Confirm Minor’s Compromise on November 10, 2022 (“Supplemental 4 Submission”). (Doc. 13.) On November 22, 2022 Judge Leshner issued a Report and 5 Recommendation for Order Granting Ex Parte Motion to Confirm Minor’s Compromise 6 (“R&R”). (Doc. 16.) The R&R ordered any objections be filed by December 2, 2022. (Id. 7 at 8.) 8 However, on December 1, 2022, Judge Leshner issued a Notice of Disclosure of 9 Conflict of Interest (“Notice of Conflict”). (Doc. 18.) The Notice of Conflict explained 10 that “[s]ubsequent to the issuance of the R&R, the undersigned became aware of a financial 11 conflict of interest in the matter due to his ownership of stock in Defendant.” (Id. at 1–2.) 12 Thus, Judge Leshner ordered that by December 9, 2022 the Parties: (1) file an objection to 13 the R&R based on the conflict, (2) file a motion to vacate the R&R and request the motion 14 for approval of the minor’s compromise be reassigned to a different magistrate judge, or 15 (3) notify the Court, by filing a Notice of Non-Objection, that the party has no objections 16 to the R&R and does not wish to have it vacated and/or reassigned. (Id. at 2.) On December 17 5, 2022, the Parties filed a Joint Notice of Non-Objection to Report and Recommendation. 18 (Doc. 19.) 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the district 21 court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district 22 court judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s 23 findings and recommended disposition. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 24 (West). Section 636 “makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 25 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” 26 and “[n]either the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, 27 findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” United States 28 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). “When no 1 timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the 2 face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory 3 committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of California, 501 F.2d 196, 4 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). 5 III. CONCLUSION 6 Having reviewed the record in this case, the Court is satisfied that approval of the 7 settlement with respect to the minor Plaintiff is warranted, and that there is no clear error 8 on the face of the record or in Judge Leshner’s R&R. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS 9 Judge Leshner’s R&R (Doc. 16) in its entirety and GRANTS the Ex Parte Motion (Doc. 10 11) and Supplemental Submission (Doc. 13). The Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 11 1. Plaintiffs shall open an interest-bearing, federally insured blocked account in 12 J.D.’s legal name (the “Blocked Account”); 13 2. Not later than 30 days after the date of the District Court’s Order granting the 14 Ex Parte Motion, Defendant shall issue a check for $5,000.00 (the “Settlement 15 Funds”) payable to the “Gomez Trial Attorneys Trust Account” and shall 16 deliver the Settlement Funds to Plaintiffs’ counsel in person or by certified 17 mail; 18 3. Plaintiffs must voluntarily dismiss the Action within 14 days of receiving the 19 Settlement Funds from Defendant; 20 4. Promptly upon receipt of the Settlement Funds, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall issue 21 a check to Plaintiffs for $4,300.41 to be deposited in the Blocked Account; 22 5. No withdrawal of principal or interest may be made from the Blocked Account 23 without a written order of this Court or another Court of competent 24 jurisdiction, until J.D. reaches 18 years of age (i.e., on June 16, 2033); and 25 6. Once J.D. reaches 18 years of age, without further order from this Court or 26 any other Court of competent jurisdiction, the depository shall pay by check 27 or draft to J.D. all funds, including interest, in the Blocked Account. 28 / / / 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || DATE: December 9, 2022 3 ieee Merteae 5 HON- RUTH BERMUBEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28