K.W., a minor, by and through her mother, Nekaiya Wilson, and Nekaiya Wilson v. Carlsbad Unified School District, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 2, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00649
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 K.W., a minor, by and through her Case No.: 25cv649-JES (DEB) mother, NEKAIYA WILSON, and NEKAIYA 12 WILSON, [REDACTED] REPORT AND 13 RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER Plaintiffs, GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR 14 v. APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISE 15 [ECF NO. 48] CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et 16 al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ December 23, 2025, Joint Motion for Approval of 20 Minor’s Compromise (“Joint Motion”). (See ECF No. 48.)1 This Report and 21 Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge James E. Simmons 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Civil Local Rule 17.1 of the United States District 23 Court for the Southern District of California. After reviewing the Joint Motion and for 24 25

26 1 The parties lodged an unredacted version of the Joint Motion to the Court via e-mail on January 9, 27 2026. On February 26, 2026, the Court granted Defendant Carlsbad Educational Foundation’s Motion 2 the Joint Motion. 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 A. Procedural History 5 On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff K.W. (“Minor Plaintiff”), by and through her mother, 6 Nekaiya Wilson, and Plaintiff Nekaiya Wilson (“Ms. Wilson”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) 7 initiated this action against Carlsbad Unified School District (“CUSD”) and Carlsbad 8 Educational Foundation (“CEF”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1.) On July 1, 9 2025, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (ECF No. 22.) In 10 the SAC, Plaintiffs bring the following causes of action against CUSD for violations of: (1) 11 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794); (2) Title II of the 12 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.); (3) 42 U.S.C. §1983; 13 (4) California Education Code §§ 220 and 234.1; (5) California Government Code § 14 11135; (6) California tort claims of battery, negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, 15 failure to protect, and failure to accommodate; (7) Title IX; (8) Title VI of the Civil Rights 16 Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.); and (9) 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (Id. at 21–22). 17 Plaintiffs also assert that CEF violated: (1) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and (2) 18 Title II of the ADA. (Id. at 25.) On August 19, 2025, and August 20, 2025, CEF and CUSD 19 filed their respective Answers to the SAC. (ECF Nos. 27 & 29.) 20 On September 12, 2025, Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher held an Early Neutral 21 Evaluation, which resulted in a settlement. (ECF No. 38.) On October 31, 2025, the 22 matter was assigned to the undersigned to fulfill the special duty of the Court to 23 safeguard the interests of the minor. (ECF No. 41.) After various extensions, the parties 24 filed the instant Joint Motion on December 23, 2025. (ECF No. 48.) 25 B. Factual Background 26 This matter arises from various incidents Minor Plaintiff allegedly experienced

27 while enrolled as a student of CUSD and CEF programs; Plaintiffs allege these incidents 2 diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; 3 Specific Learning Disorders with Impairment in Math, Reading, and Written Expression; 4 and Developmental Coordination Disorder. (Id. at 3.) Defendants do not admit fault 5 and deny all allegations made by Plaintiffs, as well as Plaintiffs’ description and 6 characterization of events precipitating the lawsuit and harm allegedly suffered by 7 Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 48 at 4, 13.) The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs’ Second 8 Amended Complaint [ECF No. 22] and the instant Joint Motion [ECF No. 48]. 9 1. Plaintiffs’ allegations against Defendant CUSD 10 Minor Plaintiff generally alleges she “experienced race-based and disability-based 11 bullying and mistreatment by staff and classmates at school[] while attending CUSD.” 12 (ECF No. 48 at 4.) Further, Minor Plaintiff alleges she was “denied the peer-reviewed 13 and research-based behavior support she required to address her autism.” (Id.) As a 14 result, Ms. Wilson “suffered emotionally for fear of her child’s wellbeing” and financially 15 by sacrificing time she would have otherwise spent on her own professional 16 advancement. (Id. at 4–5.) 17 a. Altercations with CUSD staff 18 Minor Plaintiff alleges she was physically assaulted by CUSD teachers several 19 times. On September 4, 2024, a teacher allegedly grabbed Minor Plaintiff’s wrist, yelled 20 at her, and yanked her out of the classroom. (Id. at 5.) On January 27, 2025, another 21 teacher allegedly tightly grabbed Minor Plaintiff’s arm, refused to let go when Minor 22 Plaintiff asked, and escorted her to the Principal’s office, where she remained for the 23 rest of the day. (Id. at 9.) On March 5, 2025, Minor Plaintiff alleges a teacher attempted 24 to confiscate pencils she was rolling on a table. (Id.) This escalated into a physical 25 altercation—the teacher “tried to snatch the table from [Minor Plaintiff] and it fell to 26 the ground”—and concluded with the teacher threatening to “call the cops.” (Id.)

27 / / / 2 During class on January 14, 2025, after Ms. Wilson had requested that Minor 3 Plaintiff not be allowed online without one-on-one supervision, Minor Plaintiff allegedly 4 went onto Omegle, an online platform that allows users to chat with strangers. (Id. at 5 8–9.) While on the platform, she came across two inappropriate videos of individuals 6 engaging in sexual acts. (Id.) On April 17, 2025, CUSD allegedly notified Ms. Wilson that 7 Minor Plaintiff was engaging in inappropriate online activity on her school device, 8 including searching for sensory toys and looking up “masterbate.” (Id. at 11.) 9 c. Chocolate allergy incidents 10 Minor Plaintiff alleges she was subjected to repeated chocolate allergy violations 11 while at CUSD. In October 2024, Minor Plaintiff allegedly consumed chocolate at school 12 and broke out in hives, requiring a trip to the school nurse. (Id. at 6–7.) The nurse did 13 not notify Ms. Wilson, and she only became aware of the incident after picking up Minor 14 Plaintiff from aftercare and noticing her symptoms. (Id.) On January 16, 2025, a 15 substitute teacher allegedly gave Minor Plaintiff chocolate in class even though Ms. 16 Wilson had previously informed the Health Office that she was allergic to chocolate. (Id. 17 at 9.) In response, the Principal replied that the substitute was not aware of all the 18 steps needed to ensure everyone was aware of Minor Plaintiff’s allergy. (Id.) 19 d. Unsupervised release from school 20 Ms. Wilson would sometimes allow Minor Plaintiff to walk home alone when she 21 could “keep an eye out for her.” (Id. at 10.) However, on March 10, 2025, Plaintiffs 22 allege that CUSD released Minor Plaintiff from school and allowed her to walk home 23 alone without Ms. Wilson’s knowledge, thereby exposing her to “grave danger.” (Id.) 24 On March 16, 2025, CUSD again released Minor Plaintiff from school without Ms. 25 Wilson’s knowledge, and Ms. Wilson was not home when Minor Plaintiff arrived. (Id.) 26 e. Interactions with CUSD students

27 Minor Plaintiff also experienced physical and verbal altercations with other 2 After Plaintiffs raised concerns to the Principal and requested action, CUSD provided an 3 “educational other means of correction” statement, which Plaintiffs claim misinformed 4 students about the history of slavery and racism, among other issues. (Id. at 7–8.) A 5 few days later, CUSD staff allegedly required Minor Plaintiff to acknowledge how she 6 had caused another student to call her the “N-word,” and CUSD asked both students to 7 sign a “Friendship Agreement.” (Id. at 8.) 8 On April 3, 2025, a female student allegedly sexually assaulted Minor Plaintiff and 9 Plaintiffs claim CUSD failed to investigate the incident within a reasonable time. (Id. at 10 10–11.) Later, on April 14, 2025, Minor Plaintiff and another student allegedly got into a 11 verbal and physical altercation, which involved pinching and pulling hair. (Id.) After the 12 students were separated and brought to the Principal’s office, Minor Plaintiff spoke of 13 getting “revenge.” (Id.) When Minor Plaintiff located where the other student was 14 waiting, she made repeated efforts to “kick[] the door and attempt[] to unlock it.” (Id.) 15 Plaintiffs allege that if Minor Plaintiff was provided the appropriate behavior support to 16 address her autism, this incident and Minor Plaintiff’s subsequent behavior could have 17 been avoided. (Id.) Additionally, in August 2025, Minor Plaintiff became aware that 18 another student, a child of a CUSD office employee, allegedly spread rumors about 19 Minor Plaintiff being previously expelled and having violent tendencies. (Id.) 20 f. Discrimination based on race and disability 21 Plaintiffs also allege that Minor Plaintiff was unfairly treated due to her disability 22 and race. On February 6, 2025, CUSD allegedly banned Minor Plaintiff from attending 23 the Lego Club at school because her autistic behavior required a “1:1 behavior support 24 CUSD was unwilling to provide.” (Id. at 9.) On April 16, 2025, Ms. Wilson complained to 25 the Principal that Minor Plaintiff was the only child suspended after the aforementioned 26 incidents, despite other students being involved. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiffs claim that Minor

27 Plaintiff was treated differently due to her blackness. (Id.) 2 Due to Minor Plaintiff’s difficulties, Plaintiffs allege Ms. Wilson’s “days became 3 consumed with advocating for [Minor Plaintiff’s] proper treatment and disability 4 support at school.” (Id. at 5.) Additionally, Plaintiffs allege Ms. Wilson’s concerns 5 regarding her daughter’s emotional and physical well-being caused Ms. Wilson to 6 experience a panic attack and seek medical care. (Id.) Plaintiffs claim Ms. Wilson had to 7 withdraw from her cybersecurity analyst certification course in September 2024 due to 8 spending so much time addressing Minor Plaintiff’s situation. (Id.) Further, Plaintiffs 9 allege Ms. Wilson’s withdrawal from this course caused: (1) direct financial loss of 10 learning materials, (2) a substantial lost income opportunity because of the certification 11 delay, (3) a disruption to her career trajectory, and (4) the suspension of contractual 12 benefits under the GSA Global Security Agency agreement. (Id. at 6.) 13 2. Plaintiffs’ allegations against Defendant CEF 14 Plaintiffs further allege that Minor Plaintiff did not receive individualized Applied 15 Behavior Analysis (“ABA”) support for her autism when attending CEF’s after-school 16 program on the CUSD campus. (Id. at 12.) On January 13, 2025, the CEF Area Manager 17 (“Manager”) allegedly sent Ms. Wilson a “Behavior Support Plan” requiring one-on-one 18 behavior modification support for Minor Plaintiff and noting that if Minor Plaintiff’s 19 disruptive behavior continued, Minor Plaintiff would be removed from the Kids Care 20 Program (“Kids Care”). (Id.) On January 15, 2025, CEF removed Minor Plaintiff from the 21 Program. (Id.) Ms. Wilson requested Minor Plaintiff be provided with ABA support so 22 she could return to Kids Care; however, the Manager notified Ms. Wilson it would be 23 best for Minor Plaintiff to develop a relationship with her ABA therapist before 24 returning and that an ABA therapist needed to accompany Minor Plaintiff upon her 25 return. (Id.) Realizing that her insurance would not cover ABA support, Ms. Wilson 26 requested that CEF provide the assistance and CEF refused. (Id.) Minor Plaintiff could

27 not return to Kids Care, which Plaintiffs allege resulted in the deterioration of Minor 2 Minor Plaintiff (by and through her guardian ad litem, Ms. Wilson), Ms. Wilson, 3 and Defendants CUSD and CEF (collectively, “the Parties”) have agreed to settle these 4 claims without trial pursuant to the following terms. (Id. at 4, 20.) Defendants agree to 5 pay to Plaintiffs, with CUSD to provide $150,000.00 and CEF to provide 6 (Id. at 20.) The Parties explain that the $150,000.00 to be paid by CUSD 7 includes payment to Minor Plaintiff, Ms. Wilson, and attorneys’ fees and costs to the 8 Law Office of Andréa Marcus, APC. (Id.) 9 (Id.) The proposed distribution from CUSD is: Minor Plaintiff: $90,000.00; Ms. 10 Wilson: $22,500.00; and Law Office of Andréa Marcus, APC: $37,500.00 (representing 11 twenty-five percent of $150,000.00). (Id. at 20–21.) The proposed distribution from CEF 12 is: 13 (Id. at 21.) The 14 Parties propose distribution of Minor Plaintiff’s net settlement by two protected 15 mechanisms: (1) a deposit into a Bank of America blocked, court-restricted 16 account pursuant to California Rule of Court 7.953, and corresponding Probate Code 17 protections; and (2) a deposit into Minor Plaintiff’s California Achieving a 18 Better Life Experience (“CalABLE”) account, governed by 26 U.S.C. § 529A and Cal. Gov’t 19 Code §§ 100500–100522, to allow for qualified disability-related savings. (Id. at 21–23.) 20 Minor Plaintiff’s net recovery is , while Ms. Wilson’s net recovery is 21 (Id. at 25.) 22 II. LEGAL STANDARD 23 Civil Local Rule 17.1 governs settlements for minors. It provides that, “[n]o action 24 by or on behalf of a minor . . . , or in which a minor . . . has an interest, will be settled, 25 compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated without court order or 26 judgment.” See CivLR 17.1(a). It further mandates that, “[a]ll settlements and

27 compromises must be reviewed by a magistrate judge before any order of approval will 2 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). The Ninth Circuit has held this duty 3 obliges the court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement 4 serves the best interest of the minor.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. 5 Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). The “court must independently 6 investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s claims to assure 7 itself that the minor’s interests are protected, . . . even if the settlement has been 8 recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem.” Salmeron v. 9 United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted). 10 District courts reviewing the settlement of a minor’s federal claim should “limit 11 the scope of their review to the question whether the net amount distributed to each 12 minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, 13 the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181– 14 82. Courts should “evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without 15 regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs 16 or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to 17 safeguard.” Id. at 1182 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078). “So long as the net recovery 18 to each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery 19 in similar cases, the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the 20 parties.” Id. 21 Notably, the Ninth Circuit expressly limited Robidoux to “cases involving the 22 settlement of a minor’s federal claims.” Id. at 1179 n.2 (emphasis added). Where a 23 settlement involves state law claims, district courts have generally applied state law 24 rather than the Robidoux framework. See, e.g., DeRuyver v. Omni La Costa Resort & 25 Spa, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-0516-H-AGS, 2020 WL 563551, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2020); J.T. v. 26 Tehachapi Unified Sch. Dist., No. 1:16-CV-01492-DAD-JLT, 2019 WL 954783, at *2 (E.D.

27 Cal. Feb. 27, 2019); A.M.L. v. Cernaianu, LA CV12-06082 JAK (RZx), 2014 WL 12588992, 2 is in the best interests of the minor.” A.M.L., 2014 WL 12588992, at *3. The California 3 Probate Code provides the applicable statutory scheme for compromises involving 4 minors. See Cal. Prob. Code §§ 3600 et seq. The court has broad discretion “to 5 authorize payment from the settlement—to say who and what will be paid from the 6 minor’s money—as well as direct certain individuals to pay it.” Goldberg v. Super. Ct., 7 23 Cal. App. 4th 1378, 1382 (1994) (assessing Cal. Prob. Code § 3601). Because Minor 8 Plaintiff’s claims are brought under both federal and California law, and to ensure all 9 potentially relevant factors are considered, the Court will review the settlement under 10 both the federal law (“fair and reasonable”) and state law (“best interests”) standards. 11 Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181; Anderson v. Latimer, 166 Cal. App. 3d 667, 676 (1985). 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 A. Settlement is Fair, Reasonable, and in Minor Plaintiff’s Best Interests 14 As stated above, this Court focuses its review on “whether the net amount 15 distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the 16 facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 17 638 F.3d at 1181–82. Moreover, California law emphasizes protecting “the best 18 interests of the minor.” Anderson, 166 Cal. App. 3d at 676. Accordingly, the Court will 19 assess whether Minor Plaintiff’s net recovery of is fair, reasonable, and in 20 Minor Plaintiff’s best interests. After a thorough review, the Court finds that it is. 21 The gross settlement amount is , consisting of $150,000.00 paid by 22 CUSD and paid by CEF. (ECF No. 48 at 20.) After accounting for attorneys’ 23 fees— (twenty-five percent of the gross settlement amount), $37,500.00 of 24 which CUSD is paying—and Ms. Wilson’s recovery— , $22,500.00 of which 25 CUSD is paying—Minor Plaintiff’s net recovery will be , $90,000.00 of which 26 CUSD is paying. (Id. at 25.) The Joint Motion includes examples of court-approved

27 settlements in Eastern District of California cases that resulted in lower net recoveries 2 independent review of cases involving similar facts and finds that Minor Plaintiff’s net 3 recovery is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. See, e.g., L.T. v. Eleanor 4 Murray Fallon Middle Sch., No. 24-CV-00110-TSH, 2025 WL 1616641, at *2–*3 (N.D. Cal. 5 June 6, 2025) (finding fair and reasonable a $74,749.38 net recovery for a twelve-year 6 old minor who was repeatedly called racial slurs at school); E.P. v. Tehachapi Unified 7 Sch. Dist., No. 1:23-CV-01724-CBD, 2025 WL 832808, at *3–*5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2025) 8 (finding fair and reasonable a $100,000.00 net recovery for a minor diagnosed with 9 autism, who alleged a teacher verbally, physically, and emotionally abused him); 10 Gonzalez v. Chula Vista Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 21-CV-1314-L-DDL, 2024 WL 1466784, 11 at *2–*3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2024) (finding fair and reasonable a $99,000.00 net recovery 12 divided amongst four neurodivergent minors who alleged physical harm, fear of physical 13 harm, and verbal abuse by a teacher); Vasquez v. Richland Sch. Dist., No. 1:19-CV-0327 14 JLT, 2021 WL 168343, at *3–*4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2021) (finding fair and reasonable a 15 $37,651.66 net recovery for a fifth grade student who alleged a teacher used 16 threatening language and was physically abusive at school). Thus, review of analogous 17 settlements in educational settings demonstrates that Minor Plaintiff’s net recovery 18 here is fair and reasonable, thereby satisfying the Robidoux standard. 19 Additionally, the proposed settlement is in Minor Plaintiff’s best interests because 20 it eliminates the cost, risk, and time commitment of pursuing the case to trial. The 21 settlement provides Minor Plaintiff with compensation comparable to that obtained in 22 similar actions and the certainty of recovery, rather than the uncertainty associated with 23 a jury verdict. Furthermore, the settlement will allow Ms. Wilson to hire ABA experts 24 “to teach [Minor Plaintiff] neuro-typical behaviors and social communication norms” 25 and pay for “recreational activities[] where [Minor Plaintiff] can utilize the ABA support 26 so she can learn the pro-social behaviors . . . that she needs . . . to succeed in the school

27 setting, and to pursue independent living and further education upon graduation.” (ECF 2 also in Minor Plaintiff’s best interests, satisfying California law. 3 B. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 4 The Court must also review the attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid for the 5 representation of Minor Plaintiff. See Cal. Prob. Code § 3601; see also CivLR 17.1(a). 6 Where counsel represents a minor on a contingency basis, attorneys’ fees are generally 7 limited to twenty-five percent of the gross recovery. See, e.g., Gonzalez, 2024 WL 8 1466784, at *3; D.C. v. Modesto City Schs., No. 1:22-CV-01481-HBK, 2023 WL 6060044, 9 at*5–*6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2023); L.P. v. Bella Mente Montessori Acad., No. 3:23-CV- 10 01166-LL-AHG, 2023 WL 4908833, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2023). To determine whether 11 the fees are reasonable, the Court may consider factors including: the involvement and 12 circumstances of the minor with a disability; the novelty and difficulty of the legal 13 services performed; the amount involved and the results obtained; the risk of loss borne 14 by counsel; and the informed consent of the minor’s representative to the fees. See Cal. 15 Rule of Ct. 7.955; Cal. Prob. Code § 3601. 16 As noted in the settlement terms, “Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and all other 17 expenses will be reimbursed from the proceeds of the settlement.” (ECF No. 48 at 21.) 18 Plaintiffs’ counsel requests , exactly twenty-five percent of the gross 19 settlement proceeds. (Id. at 25.) In an accompanying exhibit, Plaintiffs’ counsel 20 provides a detailed breakdown of their legal services and expenses provided from 21 March to December 2025. (See ECF No. 48-8.) Based on the duration of this case, the 22 specialization required to represent a minor in a case of this nature, the amount of work 23 performed by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the request’s adherence to the twenty-five percent 24 limit historically applied by courts, the undersigned finds the requested attorneys’ fees 25 to be reasonable. 26 C. Disbursement of Funds

27 Civil Local Rule 17.1 requires that “[m]oney or property recovered by a minor . . . 2 California Probate Code, settlement funds for a minor may be disbursed through various 3 authorized methods. See Cal. Prob. Code § 3600 et seq. Here, Plaintiffs request that 4 Minor Plaintiff’s settlement be distributed through two separate protected mechanisms: 5 (1) deposit into a court-restricted, blocked account and (2) deposit into Minor Plaintiff’s 6 CalABLE account, “to allow for qualified disability-related savings consistent with federal 7 and state law.” (ECF No. 48 at 21.) First, Plaintiff proposes that of Minor 8 Plaintiff’s settlement proceeds be placed in a blocked account set up in Minor Plaintiff’s 9 name at Bank of America. (Id. at 21–22.) No withdrawals are allowed until Minor 10 Plaintiff reaches the age of eighteen, unless otherwise authorized by this Court. (Id.) 11 Second, Plaintiffs propose the remaining of Minor Plaintiff’s settlement 12 proceeds be placed into Minor Plaintiff’s CalABLE account, “permitting savings for 13 individuals with disabilities without affecting eligibility for public benefits, subject to 14 statutory contribution limits,” with the proceeds exclusively used for “qualified disability 15 expenses.” (Id. at 22–23.) Plaintiffs note this amount “falls within the federally 16 permitted annual contribution limit” for this type of account. (Id. at 23.) The account 17 will be held in Minor Plaintiff’s name, with a parent acting as her authorized legal 18 representative. (Id.) 19 This procedure for disposition of the funds—placing a portion of the settlement in 20 a court-restricted account and setting aside the remainder of the proceeds into a 21 CalABLE account for approved disability expenses—is consistent with the California 22 Probate Code. Specifically, Section 3611(b) and (c) authorizes the court, if it is in the 23 best interest of the minor, to order the settlement funds to be deposited “in an insured 24 account in a financial institution in this state . . . subject to withdrawal only upon the 25 authorization of the court” [Cal. Prob. Code §3611(b)] and to allow “the remaining 26 balance of any money . . . [to] be paid to a special needs trust . . . for the benefit of the

27 minor . . . with a disability” [Cal. Prob. Code §3611(c)]. Accordingly, the Court finds the 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds the proposed settlement to be a 3 || fair and reasonable resolution of this case in the best interests of Minor Plaintiff, under 4 || both federal and state law. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Court issue 5 ||an Order: (1) ADOPTING this Report and Recommendation and (2) GRANTING the Joint 6 || Motion for Approval of Minor’s Compromise [ECF No. 48]. 7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), any party may file written objections with 8 || the District Court and serve a copy on all parties on or before March 16, 2026. The 9 ||document should be captioned “Objection to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply 10 || to the objections shall be served and filed on or before March 23, 2026. The parties are 11 || advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 12 || appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 || The undersigned notes that the Joint Motion in this case is unopposed. (See ECF No. 14 Therefore, if all parties wish to waive the objections period, they should file a 15 || joint stipulation to that effect immediately, to allow the Court to adopt this Report and 16 Recommendation without further delay. However, there shall be no adverse 17 || consequences to any party who files objections or otherwise chooses not to waive the 18 || objections period. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: March 2, 2026 _ = _ 2 FF 3 Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28