Opinion
1:22-cv-00075-ADA-EPG
03-20-2023
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, Plaintiff in Interpleader, v. JOEY MUA, et al., Defendants in Interpleader.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF MINORS' SETTLEMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ORDER DENYING SECOND APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF MINORS' SETTLEMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF NOS. 28, 31, 32, 33, 34)
This is an interpleader action concerning the disbursement of funds from a life insurance policy. On December 14, 2022, Defendant Youa Lee, who is the state-appointed Guardian of Minor Defendants C.A.M. and E.K.M, filed an application for approval of minors' settlement. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 29).
On February 1, 2023, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the application be denied without prejudice based on Defendant Lee's failure to comply with Local Rule 202(b)(1), which requires initial state court approval of a minor's settlement. (ECF No. 32). The findings and recommendations were served on Defendant Lee and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 1, 5.) Defendant Lee filed no objections, and the time to do so has expired.
However, on February 13, 2023, Defendant Lee filed a second application for approval of minors' settlement, which is nearly identical to the initial application. (ECF No. 33.) Because the second application likewise fails to comply with Local Rule 202(b)(1) for the reasons identified in the findings and recommendations, the Court will also deny the application and notice of support without prejudice.
On March 14, 2023, Defendant Mainhia Vue filed a notice of support for Defendants Mua and Lee. (ECF No. 34.) This does not demonstrate that Defendant Lee has complied with Local Rule 202(b)(1). As a reminder, Local Rule 202(b)(1) requires that “the settlement or compromise shall first be approved by the state court having jurisdiction over the personal representative,” which, in this case, is the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Merced. Accordingly, Defendant Lee must first obtain approval by the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Merced prior to this Court's review of the minor's settlement for approval.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The February 1, 2023, findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 32), are adopted in full;
2. Defendant Lee's application, (ECF. Nos. 28, 31), and second application, (ECF No. 33), for approval of minors' settlement are denied without prejudice; and
3. Defendant Lee is granted leave to file a new application, complete and without reference to her previous applications or supplement, fully complying with the Court's Local Rules and all other applicable law following state approval of the proposed settlement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.