Valenzuela v. San Diego Police Department

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CANDACE VALENZUELA; SUSANA Case No.: 19cv0002-LL-DEB VALENZUELA; JAZMYNE ANNE 12 MARIE JONES, a minor, ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF Plaintiffs, No. 83]; AND 14 v. 15 (2) GRANTING MOTION TO SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT; CONFIRM MINOR’S 16 CHRISTOPHER PAVLE; ERICH COMPROMISE [ECF No. 80] BENNETT, and DOES 1 to 10, 17 Defendants. 18

19 20 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate 21 Judge Bernard G. Skomal, filed on July 5, 2022, recommending that the Court grant 22 Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm Minor’s Compromise (“Motion”) and approve the proposed 23 settlement. ECF No. 83. Plaintiff J.A.M.J. (“minor Plaintiff”) filed the Motion seeking the 24 Court’s approval of minor Plaintiff’s interests in a settlement of this action. ECF No. 80. 25 Minor Plaintiff appears by and through her guardian ad litem, Frances Anne Marie Spencer. 26 ECF No. 1-2 at 14–15. 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth the district 28 court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 1 district court judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to 2 which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 3 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see 4 also United States. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 5 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court 6 “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 7 accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 8 Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 874 F.2d 614, 206) (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States 9 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must review 10 the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 11 otherwise.”). 12 Here, Judge Skomal ordered that any opposition to the R&R be filed by July 19, 13 2022. ECF No. 83 at 8. No opposition was filed to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, 14 the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error on the face of 15 the record. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Judge Skomal’s R&R; (2) 16 GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to confirm minor’s compromise; and (3) consistent with the 17 R&R, DIRECTS the following: 18 (1) That the settlement funds be disbursed as follows: $1,016.67 to reimburse Medi- 19 Cal and $3,983.33 to the minor Plaintiff; 20 (2) the minor’s settlement proceeds are to be deposited in an interest-bearing, 21 federally insured blocked account; 22 (3) That the blocked account is open in the legal name of the minor Plaintiff; 23 (4) That no withdrawal of principal or interest may be made from the blocked 24 account without a written order of this Court, or any other court of competent 25 jurisdiction, until the minor reaches 18 years of age; 26 (5) That when the minor reaches 18 years of age, the depository, without further 27 order of this Court or any other court of competent jurisdiction, is authorized and 28 1 directed to pay by check or draft directly to the former minor all funds, including 2 interest, deposited under this Court’s order; and 3 (6) that the guardian ad litem shall file an acknowledgment of receipt of this Court’s 4 order confirming the minor’s compromise. 5 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: July 25, 2022 NO

8 Honorable Linda Lopez 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28