Valenzuela v. San Diego Police Department

Opinion

CANDACE VALENZUELA; SUSANA Case No.: 19cv0002-LL-DEB VALENZUELA; JAZMYNE ANNE MARIE JONES, a minor, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF Plaintiffs, No. 83]; AND v. (2) GRANTING MOTION TO SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT; CONFIRM MINOR’S CHRISTOPHER PAVLE; ERICH COMPROMISE [ECF No. 80] BENNETT, and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal, filed on July 5, 2022, recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm Minor’s Compromise (“Motion”) and approve the proposed settlement. ECF No. 83. Plaintiff J.A.M.J. (“minor Plaintiff”) filed the Motion seeking the Court’s approval of minor Plaintiff’s interests in a settlement of this action. ECF No. 80. Minor Plaintiff appears by and through her guardian ad litem, Frances Anne Marie Spencer. ECF No. 1-2 at 14–15. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the district court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 874 F.2d 614, 206) (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Here, Judge Skomal ordered that any opposition to the R&R be filed by July 19, 2022. ECF No. 83 at 8. No opposition was filed to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Judge Skomal’s R&R; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to confirm minor’s compromise; and (3) consistent with the R&R, DIRECTS the following: (1) That the settlement funds be disbursed as follows: $1,016.67 to reimburse Medi- Cal and $3,983.33 to the minor Plaintiff; (2) the minor’s settlement proceeds are to be deposited in an interest-bearing, federally insured blocked account; (3) That the blocked account is open in the legal name of the minor Plaintiff; (4) That no withdrawal of principal or interest may be made from the blocked account without a written order of this Court, or any other court of competent jurisdiction, until the minor reaches 18 years of age; (5) That when the minor reaches 18 years of age, the depository, without further order of this Court or any other court of competent jurisdiction, is authorized and directed to pay by check or draft directly to the former minor all funds, including interest, deposited under this Court’s order; and (6) that the guardian ad litem shall file an acknowledgment of receipt of this Court’s order confirming the minor’s compromise. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 25, 2022 NO

Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge