Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01621/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01621-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On November 1, 2016, the parties notified the Court that “the parties have reached a settlement 

that will resolve this case in its entirety.” (Doc. 51) Thereafter, the Court ordered the guardians ad 

litem to file the petitions for approval of the minors’ compromise no later than November 23, 2016. 

(Doc. 52) Now the guardians ad litem seek an extension of time to December 23, 2016 to file the 

petitions because the parties are still working out the details of the settlement. (Doc. 53)

In addition, counsel for the guardians indicates uncertainty as to whether the petitions should 

be filed in state court or in this court. Though he cites the procedures of the Central District of 

California and the requirements of California law, he does not cite this Court’s Local Rule 202 which 

sets forth his obligations. Local Rule 202(b)(1) provides, “In actions in which the minor . . . is 

represented by an appointed representative pursuant to appropriate state law . . . the . . . compromise 

shall first be approved by the state court having jurisdiction over the personal representative.” 

It appears that much of the confusion stems from the fact when this action was filed, the

guardians ad litem may have already been appointed to act by the Kern County Superior Court. 

SHAWN J. PAREGIEN, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

WILSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01621 AWI JLT 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF THE 

MINORS’ COMPROMISE

(Doc. 53)

Case 1:15-cv-01621-AWI-JLT Document 54 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 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

Despite that no further appointment would have been necessary, the guardians ad litem sought and 

were granted these positions in this Court as well. Given the fact that the Court’s order appointing the 

guardians—it now appears—was superfluous, the guardians SHALL proceed according to Local Rule 

202(b)(1). In short, the petitions must be filed in both courts but in the sequence set forth in the Local 

Rule. Due to the additional time needed for the Superior Court to rule, the Court will extend the 

deadline for the filing the petitions in this Court.

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS:

1. The request for additional time to file the petition for approval of the minors’ 

compromise (Doc. 53) is GRANTED. The petition(s) SHALL be filed no later than February 3, 

2017. Counsel need not set the petition(s) for hearing. The Court will do so only if it deems 

necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01621-AWI-JLT Document 54 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 2