P. v. Holy Names University

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 M. P., et al., Case No. 21-cv-03014-JST

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. APPROVAL OF MINOR'S COMPROMISE 10 HOLY NAMES UNIVERSITY, et al., Re: ECF No. 100 Defendants. 11

12 13 M.P., as guardian ad litem for minor J.P., brings this motion for approval of a minor’s 14 compromise. ECF No. 100. The Court will grant the motion. 16 Plaintiff asserted claims for (1) race-based discrimination in violation of Title VI of the 17 Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”); (2) disability- 18 based discrimination in violation of Title III of the ADA and the Unruh Act; and (3) breach of 19 contract against Defendants in his Fourth Amended Complaint. ECF No. 33 ¶¶ 37–58. On April 20 6, 2023, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. ECF No. 72. Plaintiff 21 appealed the summary judgment order on April 20, 2023. ECF No. 79. The same day, 22 Defendants filed a motion for attorney’s fees. ECF No. 80. On August 17, 2023, the parties filed 23 a stipulation indicating that they had reached a settlement and requesting that the Court stay its 24 decision on the motion for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 98, which the Court granted on August 18, 25 2023, ECF No. 99. 26 J.P. filed this motion for approval of a minor’s compromise on September 21, 2023, 27 informing the Court that the parties had reached a settlement by which J.P. released his claims 1 costs. ECF No. 100. This Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the motion while J.P.’s appeal was 2 pending at the Ninth Circuit absent a limited remand from the Ninth Circuit for that purpose. See 3 ECF No. 102. The Court issued an indicative ruling stating that it intended to approve the 4 compromise if the Ninth Circuit issued such a remand. Id. at 2. 5 On January 9, 2024, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to permit this Court to resolve the 6 motion for approval of a minor’s compromise. ECF No. 103-1. Pursuant to the Court’s order, the 7 parties have also lodged a copy of the complete signed settlement agreement with the Court. See 8 ECF No. 104. 10 The Court has jurisdiction over the Civil Rights Act and ADA claims under 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1331. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1367. 14 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 15 safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 16 (9th Cir. 2011). “In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this 17 special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the 18 settlement serves the best interests of the minor.’” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 19 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). Where there is a settlement of federal claims, district courts should 20 “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net amount distributed to each minor 21 plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s 22 specific claim, and recovery in similar cases,” and should “evaluate the fairness of each minor 23 plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for 24 adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to 25 safeguard.” Id. at 1181–82 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078). 26 This case implicates both federal and state law claims, and the terms of the settlement are 27 not claim-specific; accordingly, the Court applies Robidoux to evaluate the settlement of the 1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2015) (citing Frary v. Cnty. of Marin, 2015 WL 3776402, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2 || June 16, 2015; Doe ex rel. Scott v. Gill, 2012 WL 1939612, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012); Bor 3 || v. PPC WSSC LLC, 2012 WL 1438779, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012)). 4 ||} IV. DISCUSSION 5 The Court finds that this settlement serves the best interest of J.P. given the facts of the 6 || case and the minor’s claims against the Defendants. Defendants prevailed on summary judgment, 7 || 72, and have filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs against J.P., ECF No. 80, which 8 this settlement will terminate, see ECF No. 100. Considering the facts of the case, the claims 9 involving J.P., and the proposed settlement, the Court approves the proposed compromise of J.P.’s 10 claims as fair and reasonable. Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 80, shall be 11 terminated as moot, and the Clerk shall close the file.

13 || Dated: February 1, 2024 14 JON S. TIGAR 15 nited States District Judge 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28