Maldonado v. Crofton

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 17, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00991
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 NATALYA MALDONADO, a minor, by Case No. 1:24-cv-00991-JLT-CDB and through guardian ad litem Sarahi Solis, 12 et al., ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE SUPPORTING AND OPPOSING DOCUMENTS 13 Plaintiffs, RELATED TO APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT BY STATE 14 v. COURT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 202(b)

15 STEPHEN ERNEST CROFTON, (Doc. 15)

16 Defendant. 5-DAY DEADLINE 17

18 On March 4, 2024, Plaintiffs Rafael Maldonado, Sarahi Solis, and minor Natalya Maldonado, 19 through her guardian ad litem Sarahi Solis (“Plaintiffs”), initiated this action with the filing of a 20 complaint in state court, asserting claims against Defendant Stephen Ernest Crofton arising out of a 21 vehicle collision. (Doc. 1-1 at 22-28). On August 21, 2024, Defendant removed the action to this 22 Court. (Doc. 1). 23 Following their filing of a notice of settlement, on December 5, 2024, the Court directed the 24 parties to file a petition for approval of minor’s compromise that includes a copy of the state court 25 order “and all supporting and opposing documents filed in connection therewith” approving the 26 minor's compromise, or, if no such state court order then had been obtained, a status report updating 27 this Court on the anticipated time frame for approval by the state court of the compromise. (Doc. 8 at 28 2-3) (citing Local Rule 202(b)(1)) (emphasis added). 1 In response to the Court’s order, on March 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice attaching proof of 2 approval by the state court of the parties’ compromise. (Doc. 15). 3 Legal Standard 4 District courts have a special duty to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors. 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c); Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). 6 “In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a 7 district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests 8 of the minor.’” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th 9 Cir. 1978)). 10 The Local Rules for this district provide that “[n]o claim by or against a minor…may be settled 11 or comprised absent an order by the Court approving the settlement or compromise.” L.R. 202(b). In 12 particular, Local Rule 202(b)(1) provides as follows: 13 “In actions in which the minor or incompetent is represented by an appointed representative pursuant to appropriate state law … the settlement or compromise shall first be approved 14 by the state court having jurisdiction over the personal representative. Following such 15 approval, a copy of the order and all supporting and opposing documents filed in connection therewith shall be filed in the District Court with a copy to all parties …” 16

17 L.R. 202(b)(1) (emphasis added). 18 Discussion 19 In its prior order requiring Plaintiffs to file a petition for approval of minor’s compromise with 20 proof of approval by the state court, the Court advised Plaintiff that, following approval, “a copy of the 21 order from the state court, as well as all supporting documents filed in connection therewith, must be 22 filed in this Court, with a service copy to all parties.” (Doc. 8 at 2) (emphasis added). The Court 23 reminded Plaintiffs of their obligation in its subsequent minute orders. (See Docs. 10, 16). 24 Here, Plaintiffs have attached proof of state court approval but failed to provide all supporting 25 and opposing documents in connection therewith. Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiffs to file 26 in this action all such supporting and opposing documents related to the approval of the minor’s 27 compromise in state court. 28 /// 1 || Conclusion and Order 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within five (5) days of the date of 3 || entry of this order, Plaintiffs SHALL FILE all supporting and opposing documents filed in state cour 4 || in connection with the state court’s approval of the minor’s compromise (see Local Rule 202(b)(1)). 5 || IT IS SO ORDERED. °|| Dated: _March 17, 2025 | hannD Pr 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28