1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 R.J.; R.O., by and through Case No.: 22-cv-1905-WQH-MMP Guardian ad Litem; R.A., by and 10 through Guardian ad Litem; and ORDER 11 R.I., by and through Guardian ad Litem, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO and 15 DOES 1-50, 16 Defendants. 17 18 HAYES, Judge: 19 The matters before the Court are the (1) Petition to Approve Minors’ Interest in the 20 Settlement of Action with the County of San Diego filed by Plaintiffs R.J., R.O., R.A., and 21 R.I. (the “Petition”) (ECF No. 27); (2) Motion to File Order Under Seal filed by Plaintiffs 22 (ECF No. 28); and (3) Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Steve B. 23 Chu (ECF No. 31). 24 I. THE PETITION 25 In the Petition, Stephany Sinclair, guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiffs R.O., R.A., 26 and R.I., seeks an order approving the minor Plaintiffs’ interests in the proposed Settlement 27 with Defendant County of San Diego. (ECF No. 27.) The Petition indicates that County 28 does not oppose the Petition. Id. at 3. The docket reflects that no opposition was filed. 1 On September 5, 2023, Judge Chu issued a Report and Recommendation, 2 recommending that the Petition be granted. (See ECF No. 31.) Objections to the Report 3 and Recommendation were due no later than September 19, 2023, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 § 636(b)(1)(C). The docket reflects that no objections to the Report and Recommendation 5 have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. 6 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation 7 issued by a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions 9 of the report … to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 10 or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”

(b). 11 The district court need not review those portions of a report and recommendation to which 12 neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis,

, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); 13 United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“Neither the 14 Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, 15 findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). 16 District courts have “a special duty” to “safeguard the interests of litigants who are 17 minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren,

(9th Cir. 2011). The Court is 18 required to limit the scope of its review to “whether the net amount distributed to [the] 19 minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the 20 minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.”

. Pursuant to Civil Local 21 Rule 17.1: 22 No action by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, or in which a minor or incompetent has an interest, will be settled, compromised, voluntarily 23 discontinued, dismissed or terminated without court order or judgment. All 24 settlements and compromises must be reviewed by a magistrate judge before any order of approval will issue. The parties may, with district judge approval 25 consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction under

(c) for entry of 26 an order approving the entire settlement or compromise.

27 S.D. Cal. CivLR 17.1(a). 28 1 The Court finds that Judge Chu has issued an accurate and well-reasoned Report and 2 Recommendation. The Court has independently reviewed the request for attorney fees. For 3 the reasons stated in the Declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel Donnie R. Cox (see ECF No. 4 27-1 at 3, ¶¶ 10–11; 5, ¶ 16), the Court finds that the requested fee is reasonable under the 5 circumstances. The Court concludes that the settlement amount is fair, reasonable, and in 6 the best interests of the minor Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and 7 Recommendation in its entirety (ECF No. 31), grants the Petition (ECF No. 27), and 8 approves the Settlement as stated below. 9 II. MOTION TO FILE ORDER UNDER SEAL 10 Plaintiffs move the Court to seal this Order approving the Petition and the 11 Declaration of Stephany Sinclair (“Declaration”) (ECF No. 29). Plaintiffs request that the 12 full names and dates of birth of minor Plaintiffs R.O., R.A., and R.I. be included in this 13 Order, and the Order and Declaration be sealed because such information is protected and 14 designated as confidential under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 and 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. (ECF No. 28 at 2.) The Declaration contains the full 16 names and dates of birth of the minor Plaintiffs, and this information is incorporated by 17 references into this Order. (ECF No. 29 at 2, ¶¶ 3–5.) 18 Having reviewed the request to seal and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 5.2, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to seal the Declaration. The Court denies the request 20 to seal this Order, finding that incorporating by reference the sealed declaration is sufficient 21 to identify the minor Plaintiffs for the purposes of this Order. 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 31) is 24 adopted in full. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (ECF No. 27) is granted. The Court 26 approves the Settlement as follows: 27 1. No later than sixty (60) days from the entry of this Order, the County shall 28 direct $10,000.00 of the settlement funds to Minor Plaintiff R.O. The funds shall 1 be deposited into a blocked account belonging to Minor Plaintiff R.O. at a 2 financial institution which maintains Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 3 (“FDIC”) membership (“the deposit”). No withdrawals of the deposit, including 4 any interest that may accrue upon such deposit, may be made absent order of the 5 Court, and until Minor Plaintiff R.O. attains the age of 18 years. Upon the date 6 of Minor Plaintiff R.O.’s 18th birthday, the deposit shall be released in its 7 entirety, inclusive of any interest that accrued upon such deposit, and directly to 8 Minor Plaintiff R.O. without further order of the Court. To that end, the deposit 9 shall not be withdrawn for any purpose, including for the funding of any 10 purported necessities of life, at any time prior to Minor Plaintiff R.O.’s 18th 11 birthday; 12 2. No later than sixty (60) days from the entry of this Order, the County shall 13 direct $10,000.00 of the settlement funds to Minor Plaintiff R.A. The funds shall 14 be deposited into a blocked account belonging to Minor Plaintiff R.A. at a 15 financial institution which maintains FDIC membership (“the deposit”). No 16 withdrawals of the deposit, including any interest that may accrue upon such 17 deposit, may be made absent order of the Court, until Minor Plaintiff R.A. attains 18 the age of 18 years. Upon the date of Minor Plaintiff R.A.’s 18th birthday, the 19 deposit shall be released in its entirety, inclusive of any interest that accrued upon 20 such deposit, and directly to Minor Plaintiff R.A. without further order of the 21 Court. To that end, the deposit shall not be withdrawn for any purpose, including 22 for the funding of any purported necessities of life, at any time prior to Minor 23 Plaintiff R.A.’s 18th birthday; 24 3. No later than sixty (60) days from the entry of this Order, the County shall 25 direct $10,000.00 of the settlement funds to Minor Plaintiff R.I. The funds shall 26 be deposited into a blocked account belonging to Minor Plaintiff R.I. at a 27 financial institution which maintains FDIC membership (“the deposit”). No 28 withdrawals of the deposit, including any interest that may accrue upon such l deposit, may be made absent order of the Court until Minor Plaintiff R.I. attains 2 the age of 18 years. Upon the date of Minor Plaintiff R.I.’s 18th birthday, the 3 deposit shall be released in its entirety, inclusive of any interest that accrued upon 4 such deposit, and directly to Minor Plaintiff R.I. without further order of the 5 Court. To that end, the deposit shall not be withdrawn for any purpose, including 6 for the funding of any purported necessities of life, at any time prior to Minor 7 Plaintiff R.I.’s 18th birthday; 8 4. No later than sixty (60) days from the entry of this Order, the County shall 9 direct $20,000.00 of the settlement funds towards payment of Plaintiff R.J.’s 10 settlement recovery, as proposed in Plaintiffs’ Petition and referred to herein, to 11 the “Law Office of Donnie R. Cox Client Trust Account and Robert □□□□□□□□□ 12 and, finally, 13 5. No later than sixty (60) days from the entry of this Order, the County shall 14 direct $50,000.00 of the settlement funds towards the payment of attorney fees in 15 this matter to “The Law Office of Donnie R. Cox.” 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to File Order Under Seal (ECF No. 17 is granted in part and denied in part. The Declaration (ECF No. 29) shall remain under 18 This Order Court shall be publicly available. 19 Dated: October 3, 2023 BE: te Z. Ma 20 Hon, William Q. Hayes 1 United States District Court 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' Plaintiff Robert Friend is an adult and is not subject to the Motion to File Under Seal. (See ECF No. 9 5; ECF No. 28 at 1-2.)