Opinion
Case No. 20-cv-2027-BAS-BLM
01-27-2021
DEOVANTE L. GUY, by and through Guardian Ad Litem for Deovante Guy, Quintasia Walker, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW LORENZEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER :
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 15);
(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT (ECF No. 7); AND
(3) APPROVING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE
Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for a Determination of Good Faith Settlement Between Plaintiff Deovante L. Guy, proceeding by and through guardian ad litem Quintasia Walker, and Defendant Annie Brady. (ECF No. 7.) The Court previously ordered the parties to submit their settlement for approval by United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major under Local Civil Rule 17.1 and took the parties' motion under advisement. (ECF No. 8.)
On January 11, 2021, Judge Major issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") finding that the proposed $100,000 settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant Brady is made in good faith and is suitable for the Court's approval under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6. (ECF No. 15 at 6.) Judge Major also considered Plaintiff's proposal to delay the distribution of the settlement, found that it is in the best interest of Mr. Guy to delay the distribution, and recommended a pertinent settlement procedure for the Court's approval. (Id.) The deadline for the parties to object to the R&R was January 19, 2021. (Id.) To date, no objections or requests for extension have been filed.
The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. "The statute makes it clear," however, "that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Of course, de novo review of a[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.")
Here, because no party has filed objections or requested additional time to do so before the January 19, 2021 deadline, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Major's reasoning is sound and agrees with the R&R's recommendations. Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties' Joint Motion for a Determination of Good Faith Settlement (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. The Court APPROVES the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant Brady under section 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court further APPROVES the following settlement procedure:
1. Plaintiff's counsel, attorney Tanisha Bostick, must deposit the entire $100,000 settlement payment in an interest-bearing account within 14 days of receiving the payment;
2. Plaintiff's counsel must ensure that neither she nor anyone else withdraws any of the settlement money without the Magistrate Judge's approval; and
3. Within thirty days after preliminary settlement with the remaining Defendants or resolution of the remaining claims, Plaintiff's counsel must file a motion seeking approval of the proposed settlement in accordance with Local Rule 17.1., California Probate Code section 3600, et seq., and related case law.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 27, 2021
/s/ _________
Hon. Cynthia Bashant
United States District Judge