Opinion
5:23-cv-00471-ODW (SHKx)
07-30-2024
M Martha Beatriz Jiminez et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. et al.
Present: The Honorable Otis D. Wright II, United States District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings (In Chambers):
On July 30, 2024, the parties filed a Stipulation re Dismissal of Action with Prejudice. (Stip., ECF No. 21.) This action is brought in part by minors, S.J. and B.J., by and through their guardian ad litem, Martha Beatriz Jiminez. (See Notice Removal Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.) The parties apparently seek to dismiss S.J.'s and B.J.'s claims based on a settlement. (See Joint Status Report 3, ECF No. 19.) However, they fail to address whether court-approval is required for this compromise of S.J.'s and B.J.'s claims. (See generally Stip.)
District courts have a special duty to protect the interests of minor plaintiffs. See Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, in the Central District of California, “[n]o claim in any action involving a minor or incompetent person shall be settled, compromised, or dismissed without leave of the Court embodied in an order, judgment, or decree.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 17-1.2. As the parties' stipulation seeks to dismiss a minor's claims based on a settlement, the Court ORDERS the parties to file with the Court, no later than Monday, August 13, 2024, a response addressing whether approval of the minors' compromise is required in this matter and, if so, why the proposed minors' compromise warrants court-approval.
In addressing potential approval of the proposed compromise, counsel are directed to comply with Local Rule 17-1.3 and related state provisions. C.D. Cal. L.R. 17-1.3 (“Insofar as practicable, hearings on petitions to settle, compromise, or dismiss a claim in an action involving a minor or incompetent person shall conform to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 372 and California Rule of Court 3.1384.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.