Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01786/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01786-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J.D.L.T and Z.D.L.T., 

individually and as decedent 

Juan De La Torre’s successors 

in interest, minors by and 

through their Guardian Ad 

Litem, VIVICA GONZALEZ; 

VIVICA GONZALEZ, an 

individual; and GRACIELA 

ARELLANO, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, 

a publicly traded Delaware 

corporation; SWIFT 

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, 

a Delaware Limited Company; 

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF 

ARIZONA, LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company; 

INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT LEASING, 

LLC, a Delaware Limited 

Liability Company; EDWARD 

GREER, JR., an individual; 

SWIFT LEASING CO., LLC (DOE 

No. 1); FIERRO TRUCKING II, 

LLC (DOE No. 2); and JOSE 

ANGEL MARTINEZ (DOE No. 3),

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1786-GEB-DAD 

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING ON REQUEST FOR AN ORDER 

APPROVING SETTLEMENT OF EACH 

MINOR’S CLAIMS

Case 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD Document 61 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 4
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

The minor Plaintiffs, through their guardian ad litem 

and mother Vivica Gonzalez, seek approval of a compromise

settling their claims against the Defendants.

1 Gonzales was 

appointed as each minor’s guardian ad litem in the California 

state court. 

However, a supplemental filing is ordered on the 

following issues. 

The movants shall address the applicability of Local 

Rule 202(b)(1), which states in relevant part: “In actions in 

which the minor. . . is represented by an appointed 

representative pursuant to appropriate state law, excepting only 

those actions in which the United States courts have exclusive 

jurisdiction, the settlement or compromise shall first be 

approved by the state court having jurisdiction over the personal 

representative.” 

The movants shall address all components of Local Rule 

202(c), which states: “When the minor. . . is represented by an 

attorney, it shall be disclosed to the Court by whom and the 

terms under which the attorney was employed; whether the attorney 

become involved in the application at the instance of the party

against whom the causes of action are asserted, directly or 

indirectly; whether the attorney stands in any relationship to 

that party; and, whether the attorney has received or expects to 

receive any compensation, from whom, and the amount.”

Since the movants indicate that approval of the 

 

1 The movants failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

5.2(a)(3), which states in relevant part: “Unless the court orders otherwise, 

. . . filing[s] with the court that contain. . . the name of an individual 

known to be a minor. . . shall include only. . . the minor’s initials.” 

Further filings shall comply with this rule. 

Case 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD Document 61 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

proposed settlement resolves this federal lawsuit, the issue is 

raised sua sponte whether all issues involving the administration 

of each trust under the California Probate Code should be 

remanded to the state court. See generally United Mine Workers of 

Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (“Needless decisions of 

state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to 

promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a 

surer-footed reading of applicable law.”); Guerrero v. Brentwood 

Union Sch. Dist., No. C 13-03873 LB, 2014 WL 1351208, at *5 (N.D. 

Cal. Apr. 4, 2014) (“Venue for on-going oversight of the special 

needs trusts established by this order shall be with the . . . 

County Superior Court, and the trustees of the trusts shall file 

an account and report with that Court in the manner and frequency 

called for by California Probate Code.”). 

Further, the movants have not included in their 

application information that Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 

1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) indicates should be addressed; 

specifically the application does not sufficiently address why 

the movants opine that the “net amount distributed to each minor 

plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of 

the facts of the case, [each] minor's specific claim, and 

recovery in similar cases.”

Lastly, the movants filing shall include the proposed 

order they desire the federal court to sign in response to their 

application. 

The referenced supplemental briefing and proposed order 

shall be filed as soon as feasible, but no later than February 

16, 2015; any response shall be filed no later than three court 

Case 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD Document 61 Filed 01/30/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

days after the supplemental brief is filed; a hearing on the 

matter is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on March 2, 2015. 

Dated: January 29, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD Document 61 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 4