Maldonado v. Crofton

Opinion

RAFAEL MALDONADO, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00991 JLT CDB

Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVING v. MINOR’S COMPROMISE, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE CASE (Doc. 19) Defendant.

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