Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-01894/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-01894-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GLYNNIS BOHANNON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-01894-BLF 

ORDER APPROVING MINOR'S 

COMPROMISE

[Re: ECF 157]

Plaintiffs I.B. and J.W., both minors when this case began, sought injunctive and 

declaratory relief against Facebook on behalf of a class of minor children who used Facebook 

regarding their rights to disaffirm contracts under California law. See Class Certification Order at 

23, ECF 131. The parties have settled this class action with agreement by Facebook to bring its 

refund practices and policies into compliance with the California Family Code, update the relevant 

language in its terms, and dedicate an internal queue to refund requests for in-app purchases made 

by U.S. minors. See Revised Settlement Agreement, ECF 157. In addition, Facebook has agreed to 

pay I.B. and J.W. $5,000 each for the effort they expended on this case. Id. In return, Plaintiffs 

release their claims, but do not bind any other class member. Id. 

The parties now seek approval of their settlement agreement. See Motion for Settlement 

Approval, ECF 141. Plaintiff has filed a proposed order approving the settlement agreement

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. See ECF 157-1. Because this case involves 

settlement with a minor, the Court must also consider and approve the Revised Settlement 

Agreement as a minor’s compromise.

1

 

1 While J.W. represents that he was 13 in December 2011, see ECF 142-8 ¶ 2, and may therefore 

no longer be a minor, the parties refer to both I.B. and J.W. as “minor Plaintiffs,” see Revised 

Case 5:12-cv-01894-BLF Document 162 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 

safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 

(9th Cir. 2011). “Rule 17(c) provides, in relevant part, that a district court ‘must appoint a 

guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person 

who is unrepresented in an action.’” Id. “In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving 

minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine 

whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.’” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza,

573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978).

A district court must consider whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable as to 

each minor plaintiff. Id. at 1182. “[T]he district court should evaluate the fairness of each minor 

plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for 

adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to 

safeguard.” Id.

While the Robidoux Court expressly limited its holding to settlement of a minor’s federal 

claims, “district courts have found the Robidoux rule reasonable in the context of state law claims 

and have applied the rule to evaluate the propriety of a settlement of a minor’s state law claims as 

well.” Frary v. Cnty. Of Marin, Case No. 12-cv-03928-MEJ, 2015 WL 3776402, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

2015); see also Mitchell v. Riverstone Residential Grp., 2013 WL 1680641, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 

17, 2013) (collecting cases). Applying the Robidoux standard is particularly appropriate here as 

California law, which governs this case, also requires that a settlement for a minor be approved by 

the court. See Cal. Prob. Code § 3601; Cal. Fam. Code § 6602.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to the settlement, Facebook has agreed to change its practices and terms regarding 

a minor’s right to disaffirm his/her contract with Facebook. See Revised Settlement Agreement § 

2. In addition, Facebook has agreed to make an incentive payment of $5,000 to a blocked account 

for each minor Plaintiff, from which no withdrawals may be made without a further written order 

 

Settlement Agreement § 7.22. The Court therefore assumes a duty to assess the settlement’s terms 

for both I.B. and J.W. 

Case 5:12-cv-01894-BLF Document 162 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

until that minor turns 18. Id. § 7.22. In return, I.B. and J.W., who allege that they are owed $7.40 

and $999.30, respectively, release their claims against Facebook. Id. §§ 3, 7.21. The Court finds 

that these terms are fair and reasonable as to I.B. and J.W. The terms achieve the goal that I.B. and 

J.W. had for bringing this lawsuit and the incentive payments reward them for the time and effort 

they expended to protect the interests of the class. Accordingly, the Court APPROVES the 

Revised Settlement Agreement as a minor’s compromise.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:12-cv-01894-BLF Document 162 Filed 05/26/16 Page 3 of 3