1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSE ALBERTO MORENO, et al., Case No. 20-cv-07150-DMR

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR 9 v. APPROVAL OF MINOR'S COMPROMISE 10 CITY OF HAYWARD, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 67 11 Defendants.

12 Plaintiffs Jose Alberto Moreno and A.B.M., by and through her mother Lorena Hernandez, 13 filed a motion to approve a minor’s compromise. [Docket No. 67.] California Rules of Court 14 7.950 and 7.951 set forth the requirements for any petition for approval of a minor’s compromise. 15 Those rules require that the petition “be verified by the petitioner” and “contain a full disclosure of 16 all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the” compromise, and that the 17 petition provide specific details about the attorney’s involvement with the minor’s claim, 18 including the terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney. See Cal. Rules of 19 Court 7.950, 7.951(6). Such information assists the court in evaluating whether “the settlement 20 serves the best interests of the minor.” See Robidoux v. Rosengren,

(9th Cir. 21 2011) (quotation and citation marks omitted). 22 Here, although counsel submitted a declaration in support of the motion, the declaration 23 does not describe the relevant terms of any agreement between counsel and Plaintiffs or how 24 counsel “became involved with” A.B.M.’s claim. See Cal. Rule of Court 7.951(2). Further, 25 Hernandez herself did not verify the motion or submit a declaration in support thereof. See Cal. 26 Rule of Court 7.950. Additionally, the motion does not contain details regarding how the total 27 settlement is to be allocated between the minor, her guardian, and Plaintiff Moreno. It also does 1 accordance with California Probate Code sections 3600 et seg. See, e.g., Whale v. Lincoln Mil. 2 || Prop. Mgmt. LP, No. 22-CV-00160-CAB-JLB,

, at *4-5 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 3 2022), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Whale v. Lincoln Mil. Prop. Mgmt. L.P., No. 4 || 3:22-CV-160-CAB-JLB,

(S.D. Cal. June 6, 2022) (analyzing details of 5 || proposed compromise of minors’ claims, including terms of the settlement, method of 6 || disbursement, and attorneys’ fees and costs). 7 Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs shall file a motion for 8 || approval of a minor’s compromise that includes all of the information necessary for the court to 9 || properly evaluate the proposed compromise by no later than September 28, 2022 and shall 10 simultaneously file a detailed proposed order granting the motion. S DISTR, 1 SE Icy S 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. CO ey RED □□ 13 || Dated: September 14, 2022 N 0 ORDE Z ris pom yy — Z 1S A\ithd hosed esis aS □□ AN | Judge □□ A □ & oN 17 & iy D * oS ig ISTRIC 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28