Maldonado v. Crofton

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAFAEL MALDONADO, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00991 JLT CDB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVING 13 v. MINOR’S COMPROMISE, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE CASE 14 STEPHEN ERNEST CROFTON, (Doc. 19) 15 Defendant.

16 Sarahi Solis, individually and as guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff Natalya Maldonado, 17 and Rafael Maldonado initiated this action in state court on March 4, 2024. (Doc. 1-1.) Defendant 18 Stephen Ernest Crofton removed the action to this Court on August 21, 2024. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs 19 filed a notice of settlement on November 8, 2024. (Doc. 5). On December 5, 2024, the Court 20 ordered Plaintiffs to file a petition for approval of minor’s compromise, including proof of 21 approval of the settlement by the state court, pursuant to Local Rule 202(b). (Doc. 8.) Plaintiffs 22 filed a notice of compliance on March 14, 2025, attaching the state court order approving the 23 minor’s compromise claim. (Doc. 15.) Because the notice failed to attach supporting and 24 opposing documents related to the claim’s approval in state court, as required by Local Rule 25 202(b), the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file said documents (Doc. 17), which Plaintiffs filed on 26 March 24, 2025 (Doc. 18). 27 As Plaintiffs had not filed a standalone petition for minor’s compromise, the assigned 1 | magistrate judge construed Plaintiffs’ filings (Docs. 15, 18) as a petition for minor’s compromise. 2 | (Doc. 19 at 2 n.2). In addition, the magistrate judge found the proposed settlement amount is 3 | “fair, reasonable, and in the best interests” of the minor Plaintiff, when compared to the recovery 4 | in similar actions. (/d. at 7.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court approve 5 | the petition. (/d. at 8.) 6 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 7 | any objections were due within 14 days. (/d.). The Court also advised the parties the “failure to 8 | file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” □□□□□ citing 9 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)). Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant filed 10 | objections, and the time do so has expired. 11 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of this case. 12 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 13 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 23, 2025 (Doc. 19), are 15 ADOPTED IN FULL. 16 2. The petition to approve the minor’s compromise (Docs. 15, 18) is GRANTED. 17 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case (Doc. 7). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: __May 9, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28