Opinion
NO. CIV. S-10-2551 LKK/GGH.
September 20, 2011
ORDER
Plaintiff parents in this case allege that their minor children were improperly taken away from them by defendant municipalities and municipal employees. The parents sued on behalf of themselves — and themselves only — for violations of their own constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiffs have now filed an ex parte application for an Order Approving Minors' Compromise. (Dkt. No. 19). However, there is no claim on behalf of the minor children that is a part of this case. The minor children, whose claims are supposedly being compromised here, were never made parties to this litigation. First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 4 5 (Dkt. No. 5); Plaintiff's Status Report ¶ (a). The first reference to the minor children as "plaintiffs," or to the mother as the minor children's Guardian Ad Litem, is this ex parte motion. Ex Parte Motion at 3 (Dkt. No. 19).
Plaintiffs have not moved to amend the complaint to add the children as parties, nor included such an amendment as part of a settlement.
In addition, plaintiffs have submitted no supporting documentation that shows that the supposedly settling party — the City of South Lake Tahoe — in fact agrees to this settlement. Plaintiffs' declaration in support does not state or indicate that any settlement has been reached with any defendant. The documents attached to the declaration are not signed by anyone, and do not show that any settlement was reached. The supposedly settling defendant has neither opposed the ex parte application, nor filed a Statement of Non-Opposition.
The application was filed " ex parte," and does not state when the matter would be heard. Other, non-settling defendants have filed a Statement of Non-Opposition (Dkt. No. 22).
For the reasons stated above, the ex parte application (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED, without prejudice. The hearing on this matter, currently scheduled for September 26, 2011 is vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.