Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01273/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01273-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

1

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIELA RANGEL, a minor, by and 

through her guardian ad litem, Jeffrey 

Rangel,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant.

CASE NO. 14-CV-1273(DMS) BGS

ORDER DENYING APPROVAL OF 

MINORS’ COMPROMISE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Doc. No. 24]

On April 24, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss and Approve 

Minor’s Compromise. (ECF No. 24.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 17.1, actions 

involving minors may not be settled, compromised, voluntarily discontinued, 

dismissed or terminated without court order or judgment. 

This court has a duty to protect the interests of minors participating in 

litigation before the court. Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th 

Cir.1983). To carry out this duty, the court must “conduct its own inquiry to 

determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Robidoux 

v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir.2011) (internal quotations omitted). 

The court's inquiry focuses solely on an evaluation of “whether the net amount 

distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light 

Case 3:14-cv-01273-DMS-BGS Document 25 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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

of the facts of the case, the minor's specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” 

Ribodoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. This evaluation must be made “without regard to the 

proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or 

plaintiffs' counsel.” Id.

The record before the Court does not provide enough information to determine 

whether the settlement serves the best interest of the minor given that the 

agreement was not reached during a court sponsored settlement conference nor 

does it contain any factual information. First, the settlement does not provide for 

any payment of money to the minor. Rather, the parties agree to dismiss the case 

in exchange for a waiver of costs and a general release. [ECF No. 24 at 2.] The 

motion also fails to include a declaration from minor’s counsel or the guardian ad 

litem explaining the basis for the conclusion that there “is no good cause to 

proceed with the case because the claims lack required expert support.” [ECF No. 

24 at 2.] As such, the motion is DENIED without prejudice to allow the parties to 

file the motion with proper support. The Court requires counsel and the guardian 

ad litem to submit declarations setting forth the research and analysis that led to the 

conclusion that the proposed minor’s compromise is fair and reasonable in light of 

the facts of the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 1, 2015 By: __________________________

Honorable Bernard G. Skomal

United States District Court

Southern District of California

Case 3:14-cv-01273-DMS-BGS Document 25 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 2