Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01909/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01909-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LaRELL FRANKLIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALLSTATE CORPORATION et al.,

Defendant

 /

No. C-06-1909 MMC

ORDER VACATING ORDER

APPROVING MINORS’ COMPROMISE

INCIDENT TO SETTLEMENT OF ACTION

AGAINST ALLSTATE DEFENDANTS;

RESETTING HEARING

Upon reviewing the Order Approving Minors’ Compromise Incident to Settlement of

Action Against Allstate Defendants, filed February 4, 2008, the Court has noted a

typographical error in the language submitted by petitioner, specifically, petitioner’s

reference to the “California Uniform Trust Minors Act (CA UTMA)," as found on page 2,

which the Court understands to be a reference to the "California Uniform Transfers to

Minors Act (CA UTMA)." 

Further, absent a hearing to determine the advisability of doing so, the Court is not

inclined to adopt petitioner’s proposal under the statutory provisions on which petitioner

appears to be relying, which provisions afford petitioner considerable discretion as to the

manner of expending the minors’ settlement funds. See Cal. Prob. Code § 3914(a)

(providing “[a] custodian may deliver or pay to the minor or expend for the minor’s benefit

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 157 Filed 02/05/08 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

2

as much of the custodial property as the custodian considers advisable for the use and

benefit of the minor, without court order . . .”); see also Cal. Prob. Code § 3602(c) (setting

forth alternatives for disposition of minor’s settlement funds).

Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the Order Approving Minors’ Compromise

filed February 4, 2008, and hereby RESETS the hearing on the Second Amended Petition

for Approval of Minors’ Compromise, for February 8, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. Petitioner should

be personally present for such hearing. If petitioner is unavailable on such date, counsel

for petitioner may propose an alternate date for the hearing on the matter. In advance of

the hearing, petitioner may also submit a declaration addressing the above-referenced

concerns.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 157 Filed 02/05/08 Page 2 of 2