Case Information
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA A.B., a minor, by and through her Case No.: 24-CV-1391 JLS (DEB) guardian ad litem, NIA BAXTER, ORDER: Plaintiff,
v. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; SAN DIEGO HOUSING, LLC, a limited liability company; LMH MILITARY (2) GRANTING PETITION FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LP, APPROVAL OF MINOR’S limited partnership; and DOES 1 through COMPROMISE; 25, inclusive,
Defendants. (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION AS MOOT; AND
(4) DISMISSING ACTION (ECF Nos. 12, 15, 18)
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise of Plaintiff A.B. (“Pet.,” ECF No. 12). Subsequently, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt directed Plaintiff to file a supplemental declaration addressing its specific liability challenges in this case. ECF No. 13. In response, Plaintiff filed a Declaration of Garratt May in Support of Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise of Plaintiff A.B. (“May Decl.,” ECF No. 14). Thereafter, Judge Burkhardt issued a Report and Recommendation advising the Court to grant Plaintiff’s Petition (“R&R,” ECF No. 15). The Parties then filed a Joint Notice of Non-Opposition to the R&R. See ECF No. 16. Having considered the Parties’ briefing, Judge Burkhardt’s Order and R&R, and the law, the Court the R&R and the Petition.
BACKGROUND
Judge Burkhardt’s Order contains an accurate and thorough recitation of the relevant background at issue. See R&R at 2. This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s R&R. The district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz , 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing , 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court , 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks approval of the proposed settlement. See Pet. at 1. The R&R concludes that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable under California and federal law standards, the method of disbursement is reasonable and within the bounds of applicable law, the attorneys’ fees requested are fair and reasonable, and Plaintiff’s counsel’s costs are reasonable, and therefore recommends that the Court approve it. See generally R&R.
No Party objects to the R&R. ECF No. 16. The Court therefore reviews the 1 R&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to approve the proposed settlement.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court the R&R (ECF No. 15); Plaintiff’s unopposed Petition for Approval (ECF No. 12); finds the proposed settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the minor’s best interest and therefore APPROVES it; and DISMISSES this action in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE . [1]
As this concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 29, 2025
[1] The Court notes Plaintiff has since filed an Ex Parte Application Requesting the Court to Sign the 27 Minor’s Compromise Order. ECF No. 18. Such Application does not appear to comply with the Local Rule 83.3(g)(2), which governs ex parte motions for orders. In any event, in light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Application (ECF No. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT .