Sauceda v. City of North Las Vegas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ESTATE OF FERNANDO SAUCEDA, et al., Case No.: 2:11-cv-02116-GMN-NJK 12 Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. [Docket No. 174] CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, et al., 15 Defendant(s).

16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ renewed petition for compromise of minor’s claim.

17 Docket No. 174. Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition. Docket No. 176. For the reasons discussed below, the hearing on the matter is VACATED and a supplement must be filed in accordance with the below directives.

20 The Ninth Circuit has established the standard by which settlement of federal claims brought by minors are judged: “whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2011).1 The petition here provides no information regarding “recovery in similar cases.”

1 The Ninth Circuit has made clear that this limitation applies in federal question cases.

26 Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1179 n.2. District courts within the Ninth Circuit have concluded that federal law applies to the entirety of a request to approve a minor’s settlement in cases, like this one, in which the Court exercises federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over additional state law claims. See, e.g., A.G.A. v. County of Riverside, Case No. EDCV 19-00077- VAP (SPx), 2019 WL 2871160, at *2 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2019) (collecting cases).

1 Accordingly, the parties must file a joint submission identifying recoveries obtained in other similar cases by April 27, 2020.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: April 13, 2020 ; Z fx en Nancy J. Koppe 6 United States Magistrate Judge