Macias et al v. City of Delano, No. 1:2018cv01634 - Document 82 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Grant Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Petition for Approval of Minor's Compromise, signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 5/31/2023. Referred to Judge de Alba. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Hall, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Macias et al v. City of Delano Doc. 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCO MACIAS, et al. 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:18-cv-01634-ADA-CDB FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR’S COMPROMISE City of Delano., et al. (Docs. 79, 81) Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 On April 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte petition for approval of minor’s compromise for 19 Plaintiff M.M. (Doc. 79). On May 12, 2023, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiffs to submit 20 supplemental briefing. (Doc. 80). The Court found the petition satisfied the requirements of Local 21 Rules 202(c) and 202(e). Id. at 4-5. However, the Court determined supplemental briefing was 22 necessary to develop the record on steps the parties took to obtain this settlement, the suitability of the 23 settlement amount, and the proposed attorneys’ fees. Id. 24 On May 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a supplement in support of the petition for approval of 25 compromise for minor Plaintiff M.M. (Doc. 81). Plaintiffs address the steps the parties took to settle 26 this matter and represented “that the proposed compromise settlement [is] fair, reasonable, and in the 27 best interests of said minor [P]laintiff.” Id. at 3. Plaintiffs provide case authority citing examples of 28 recoveries in similar cases demonstrating the suitability of the settlement amount. Id. Plaintiffs also 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 argue the attorneys’ fees set at 33.3% is “appropriate and reasonable because this matter was within 2 ninety (90) days of the Final Pretrial Conference” and “substantial work in preparation for trial, 3 including but not limited to pretrial filings and preparing exhibits and witnesses, was completed.” Id. 4 Plaintiffs’ petition and supplemental briefing satisfies the requirement of Local Rule 202(b)(2). 5 Plaintiffs have disclosed sufficient information for the Court to determine the compromise is fair. 6 Further, Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing provides supporting authority that shows the compromise is 7 fair and reasonable. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing establishes good cause for Plaintiffs’ 8 attorneys’ fees, based on the expenditure of time and resources litigating this case. Accordingly, in 9 light of Plaintiffs’ ex parte petition for M.M. for approval of minor’s comprise (Doc. 79), the attached 10 declaration (Doc. 79-1), and Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief (Doc. 81), the undersigned finds the 11 proposed minor’s compromise is a fair and reasonable settlement of this action, and recommends 12 granting the ex parte petition. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 14 1. Plaintiffs’ ex parte petition to approve minor’s compromise for minor Plaintiff M.M. (Doc. 15 16 79) be GRANTED; and 2. The Court approve the minor’s compromise according to the terms set forth in the ex parte petition to approve the minor’s comprise for minor Plaintiff M.M. 17 18 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days 20 after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 21 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 22 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 23 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 24 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: May 31, 2023 ___________________ _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
