Guy v. Lorenzen

District Court, S.D. California·Decided January 27, 2021·No. 3:20-cv-02027·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DEOVANTE L. GUY, by and through Case No. 20-cv-2027-BAS-BLM Guardian Ad Litem for Deovante Guy, 12 Quintasia Walker, ORDER : 13 Plaintiff, (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 v. RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 15); 15 MATTHEW LORENZEN, et al., (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 16 Defendants. GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT (ECF 17 No. 7); AND

18 (3) APPROVING THE PROPOSED 19 SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE

21 22 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for a Determination of Good 23 Faith Settlement Between Plaintiff Deovante L. Guy, proceeding by and through guardian 24 ad litem Quintasia Walker, and Defendant Annie Brady. (ECF No. 7.) The Court 25 previously ordered the parties to submit their settlement for approval by United States 26 Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major under Local Civil Rule 17.1 and took the parties’ 27 motion under advisement. (ECF No. 8.) 28 1 On January 11, 2021, Judge Major issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 2 finding that the proposed $100,000 settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant Brady is 3 made in good faith and is suitable for the Court’s approval under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 4 § 877.6. (ECF No. 15 at 6.) Judge Major also considered Plaintiff’s proposal to delay the 5 distribution of the settlement, found that it is in the best interest of Mr. Guy to delay the 6 distribution, and recommended a pertinent settlement procedure for the Court’s approval. 7 (Id.) The deadline for the parties to object to the R&R was January 19, 2021. (Id.) To 8 date, no objections or requests for extension have been filed. 9 The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are made. 10 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 11 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. “The statute makes it 12 clear,” however, “that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 13 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna- 14 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “Neither the Constitution nor the 15 statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 16 parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is 17 well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 18 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a[n] R & R is only required when 19 an objection is made to the R & R.”) 20 Here, because no party has filed objections or requested additional time to do so 21 before the January 19, 2021 deadline, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. 22 See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of 23 the R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Major’s reasoning is sound and agrees with the 24 R&R’s recommendations. Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS 25 ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 26 The parties’ Joint Motion for a Determination of Good Faith Settlement (ECF No. 27 7) is GRANTED. The Court APPROVES the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant 28 Brady under section 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 1 The Court further APPROVES the following settlement procedure: 2 1. Plaintiff's counsel, attorney Tanisha Bostick, must deposit the entire 3 ||$100,000 settlement payment in an interest-bearing account within 14 days of receiving 4 || the payment; 5 2. Plaintiff's counsel must ensure that neither she nor anyone else withdraws any of 6 || the settlement money without the Magistrate Judge’s approval; and 7 3. Within thirty days after preliminary settlement with the remaining Defendants or 8 resolution of the remaining claims, Plaintiff’s counsel must file a motion seeking approval 9 || of the proposed settlement in accordance with Local Rule 17.1., California Probate Code 10 || section 3600, et seg., and related case law. 12 13 ||DATED: January 27, 2021 Lin A (Ayphan 6 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Guy v. Lorenzen, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Guy v. Lorenzen (Guy v. Lorenzen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related