1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 F. R., a minor, by and through her Guardian Case No. 23-cv-01840-BLF Ad Litem, MILA ROMERO, 8 ORDER VACATING HEARING Plaintiff, ON PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF 9 MINOR’S COMPROMISE; GRANTING v. PETITION; AND GRANTING 10 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE SANTA CLARA UNIFIED SCHOOL UNDER SEAL 11 DISTRICT; DANIEL FLORES; ANTHONY ALBERTS; NICOLE BILTE; [Re: ECF 61, 62] 12 and MELISSA LE, 13 Defendants.

14 15 Minor Plaintiff F.R. (“Plaintiff”), through her mother Mila Romero acting as guardian ad 16 litem (“Ms. Romero”), claims that she was mistreated and sexually battered by staff at the public 17 school where she attended kindergarten. The operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleges 18 federal and state law claims against three teachers, the school principal, and the Santa Clara 19 Unified School District (“District”). See FAC, ECF 12. The parties have reached a settlement, 20 and Plaintiff has filed an unopposed Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise (“Petition”). 21 See Pl.’s Pet., ECF 61. Plaintiff also has filed an administrative motion to seal the proposed order 22 granting the Petition on the ground that it contains her full name. See Pl.’s Admin. Mot. to File 23 under Seal, ECF 62. Plaintiff has filed a redacted version of the proposed order, replacing her full 24 name with the initials F.R., on the public docket as an exhibit to the Petition. See Prop. Order, 25 ECF 61-4. 26 The Court finds the Petition suitable for disposition without oral argument, and for that 27 reason the hearing previously set for January 2, 2025 is VACATED. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). As 1 I. PETITION FOR MINOR’S COMPROMISE (ECF 61) 2 After participating in a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Virginia K. 3 DeMarchi, the parties reached a settlement of the case, subject to the approval of the District’s 4 Joint Powers Authority’s Executive Committee. See Minute Entry, ECF 56; Slater Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 5 61-1. After such approval was obtained, the parties executed a written settlement agreement 6 providing that Plaintiff will dismiss her claims against all Defendants with prejudice in exchange 7 for $20,000, and that the parties will bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. See Pet. at 3. 8 Plaintiff’s counsel have agreed to waive their attorneys’ fees and to forgo reimbursement of nearly 9 $5,000 in costs that counsel advanced to Plaintiff. See Slater Decl. ¶ 3. Accordingly the entire 10 $20,000 settlement amount will go to Plaintiff. See id. 11 Ms. Romero requests permission to spend $4,800 of the settlement amount to pay for 12 Plaintiff to have Occupational Therapy (“OT”). Ms. Romero explains that since the events giving 13 rise to this suit, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress and reversion in several basic activities of 14 daily living, including fine motor skills, potty training, and the ability to focus and socialize with 15 others. See Romero Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 61-3. Plaintiff has participated in some OT sessions, with 16 positive results, and Ms. Romero would like Plaintiff to have periodic OT sessions to help her 17 through the 2024-2025 school year. See id. ¶ 4. While Ms. Romero has paid for the OT sessions 18 Plaintiff has had, she would have a difficult time covering future OT sessions throughout the 19 school year at $240 per session. See id. Ms. Romero seeks permission to use $4,800 of the 20 settlement amount on 20 sessions of OT for Plaintiff (20 sessions x $240 per session = $4,800). 21 The $4,800 would go solely to obtain OT sessions for Plaintiff; Ms. Romero is not seeking 22 reimbursement for medical expenses she has paid on Plaintiff’s behalf. See id. ¶¶ 2-4. 23 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 24 safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren,

, 1181 25 (9th Cir. 2011). “In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this 26 special duty requires a district court to conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the 27 settlement serves the best interests of the minor.”

(quotation marks and citation omitted). The 1 for the minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of the facts of the case and the minor’s 2 specific claims, without regard to the proportion of the settlement amount designated for the 3 plaintiff’s counsel or adult co-plaintiffs. See

. “If the net recovery of each minor 4 plaintiff under the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, the district court should approve the 5 settlement as proposed.”

. 6 The Robidoux court limited its holding to settlement of a minor’s federal claims, stating 7 that it did “not express a view on the proper approach for a federal court to use when sitting in 8 diversity and approving the settlement of a minor’s state law claims.” Robidoux,

9 n.2. However, “district courts have found the Robidoux rule reasonable in the context of state law 10 claims and have applied the rule to evaluate the propriety of a settlement of a minor’s state law 11 claims as well.” Frary v. Cnty. of Marin, Case No. 12-cv-03928,

, at *1 (N.D. 12 Cal. June 16, 2015); see also Mitchell v. Riverstone Residential Grp., No. S-11-2202,

1680641, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2013) (collecting cases). This Court finds those decisions to be 14 well-reasoned, and applies the Robidoux rule to determine whether the settlement is in Plaintiff’s 15 best interest with respect to both her federal claims and her state law claims. 16 The Court finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable. Plaintiff’s claims are extremely 17 serious, but may be difficult to prove given Plaintiff’s young age at the time of the events in 18 question and the apparent lack of witnesses to the alleged abuse. Plaintiff will receive the entire 19 $20,000 settlement amount. With respect to Ms. Romero’s request to use $4,800 of the funds to 20 provide Plaintiff with OT, the Court may authorize expenditure of settlement funds “needed for 21 specific expenses – e.g., amounts needed for medical treatment and extracurricular activities – if 22 sufficiently detailed and supported.” Williams v. Dumaguindin, No. 2:20-cv-09042-VAP-(ASx), 23

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2021); see also Robledo-Olvera v. Thrond, No. 2:18- 24 CV-00519-GMN-EJY,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 28, 2020) (authorizing 25 expenditure of minor’s settlement funds for medical expenses in the amount of $2,970.27). The 26 Court finds Ms. Romero’s declaration, explaining Plaintiff’s need for OT and the difficulty Ms. 27 Romero would have affording the OT, to be sufficiently detailed to support expenditure of $4,800 1 Upon a finding that the settlement of a minor’s claims is fair and reasonable, district courts 2 in the Ninth Circuit generally order that such funds be deposited into a blocked account for the 3 minor’s benefit, meaning that no withdrawals from the account will be permitted absent court 4 order, with the funds to be released to the minor upon the minor’s 18th birthday. See, e.g. Frary, 5

, at *3. The proposed order submitted with the Petition provides that the 6 $20,000 in settlement funds shall be deposited into an interest-bearing blocked account in the 7 minor Plaintiff’s name, that no withdrawals may be made until Plaintiff reaches the age of 18 8 absent court order, and ordering that Ms. Romero is authorized to withdraw $4,800 from the 9 account for use in providing OT to Plaintiff. The Court finds the language of the proposed order 10 to be appropriate and will issue it simultaneously with the present reasoned order. 11 Plaintiff’s Petition is GRANTED. 12 II. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (ECF 62) 13 Plaintiff has filed an unopposed motion to seal the proposed order granting her Petition on 14 the ground that the proposed order contains her full name. Recitation of Plaintiff’s full name is 15 necessary to ensure that a blocked account be open in her name and for her benefit. Plaintiff has 16 submitted a redacted version of the proposed order, replacing her full name with the initials F.R., 17 on the public docket as an exhibit to the Petition. 18 The Court first must determine whether Plaintiff’s motion to seal should be evaluated 19 under the “compelling reasons” standard applicable to documents that are “more than tangentially 20 related to the merits of a case,” or under the lesser “good cause” standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety 21 v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2006). The Court finds the 22 compelling reasons standard to be applicable, because issuing the proposed order granting the 23 Petition will terminate the case. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal Plaintiff’s 24 full name, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the sealing of minors’ names in court 25 documents, and Plaintiff has a strong privacy interest in protecting her identity given the nature of 26 her allegations. 27 Plaintiff’s administrative sealing motion is GRANTED. The unredacted version of the 1 proposed order omitting Plaintiff's full name (ECF 62-2) shall remain on the public docket. When 2 || the Court signs the proposed order granting the Petition, the unredacted version containing 3 Plaintiffs full name shall be filed under seal, while a redacted version of the order shall be filed 4 || on the public docket. 5 Il. ORDER 6 (1) The hearing on Plaintiffs Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise, 7 previously set for January 2, 2025, is VACATED. 8 (2) The Petition is GRANTED, and the Court will sign and file Plaintiff's proposed 9 Order Granting Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise simultaneously with 10 the present order. 11 (3) Plaintiff's administrative motion to seal is GRANTED. The unredacted version of 12 the proposed order granting the Petition (ECF 62-2) shall be sealed, while the 5 13 redacted version of the proposed order omitting Plaintiffs full name (ECF 62-2) 14 shall remain on the public docket. When the Court signs the proposed order 3 15 granting the Petition, the unredacted version containing Plaintiff’s full name shall a 16 be filed under seal, while a redacted version of the order shall be filed on the public 3 17 docket. 18 (4) This order terminates ECF 61 and ECF 62. 19 20 Dated: August 6, 2024

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28