Nunes, et al. v. Stephens, et al., No. 1:2019cv00204 - Document 91 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 89 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING Plaintiff's 78 Motion for Approval of the Minors' Compromise, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/21/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELA NUNES, et al., 12 No. 1:19-cv-00204-DAD-SAB Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINORS’ COMPROMISE Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 78, 89, 90) 16 17 On February 12, 2019, plaintiffs Angelina Nunes, Emanuel Alves, and minors D.X. and 18 L.X. by and through their guardian ad litem Angelina Nunes (collectively “plaintiffs”) filed the 19 pending action against defendants Arata, Swingle, Van Egmond & Goodwin (PLC) and the 20 County of Stanislaus, alleging unauthorized and unconstitutional access and distribution of 21 plaintiffs’ confidential juvenile casefile records. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a 22 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 21, 2022, plaintiffs filed a petition seeking approval of the parties’ settlement 23 24 and minors’ compromise.1 (Doc. No. 78.) On May 24, 2022, defendants filed statements of non- 25 26 27 28 1 The parties filed a nearly identical petition in the related action Nunes v. County of Stanislaus, No. 17-cv-00633-DAD-SAB (Nunes I), because the parties’ settlement resolves both actions. The assigned magistrate judge issued separate findings and recommendations on the docket in Nunes I to address that petition, and the undersigned will issue on order on the docket in Nunes I to address those findings and recommendations. 1 1 opposition to the pending petition. (Doc. Nos. 86, 87.) On May 31, 2022, the assigned 2 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiffs’ petition for 3 approval of the minors’ compromise be granted and that the parties’ settlement be approved. 4 (Doc. No. 89 at 10.) The findings and recommendations contained notice that any objections 5 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. To date, no objections to the findings and 6 recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has passed. On June 13, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss this action with prejudice.2 7 8 (Doc. No. 90.) 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 10 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 11 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 12 Accordingly: 13 1. 14 adopted in full; 15 2. 16 Plaintiffs’ petition to approve settlement of the minors’ claims (Doc. No. 78) is granted; 17 3. 18 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation (Doc. No. 90), this action is dismissed with prejudice; and 19 20 The findings and recommendations issued on May 31, 2022 (Doc. No. 89) are 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: June 21, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Although the parties’ stipulation states that they stipulate to the dismissal of Nunes I as well, the parties in Nunes I have not yet filed a similar stipulation on the docket in that case. Accordingly, the court will not dismiss the Nunes I action based upon the stipulation filed by the parties in this action. The undersigned notes, however, that the court will issue an order which will be docketed in the Nunes I action directing the parties in that action to file either a stipulation or a request for dismissal of that action. 2 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.