Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02780/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02780-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 42:1396 - Tort Negligence

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IDALIA LOPEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED ABRASIVES, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ESTATE OF ARIEL MUNOZ GARCIA,

et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

TOP CAT AIR TOOLS, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-2780 EMC

No. C-14-2840 EMC

CONSOLIDATED CASES

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ORDER

REGARDING MOTION TO APPROVE

MINORS' COMPROMISE

(Docket No. 47)

On September 3, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for the Court to approve a compromise of the legal

claims of the decedent’s minor children. Docket No. 47. This Court has “a special duty . . . to

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

(9th Cir. 2011). Specifically 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. (citation omitted). The Court must

consider the fairness of the proposed settlement, and must specifically consider whether the

Case 3:14-cv-02780-EMC Document 48 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

“proposed net recovery” of the minor plaintiffs “is fair and reasonable in light of the facts of the

case, each minor's claims, and typical recovery by minor plaintiffs in similar cases.” Id. at 1182.

Plaintiffs’ petition does not currently shed light on all of the issues the Court should consider

under Ninth Circuit law. For instance, Plaintiffs have not provided information regarding the

“typical recovery” of minor plaintiffs in similar actions. Consequently, the Plaintiffs are hereby

ORDERED to file a supplemental brief, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length, that further explains

why the Court should approve this settlement. Among other things, the brief should explain the

litigation risks that Plaintiffs face if this case is not settled, and provide sufficient data regarding

comparable settlements of comparable claims. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ submission might reveal

attorney-work product or otherwise privileged information (e.g., a candid assessment of litigation

risks if the case is not settled), such information can be filed under seal and ex parte by way of a

separate declaration. Plaintiffs’ brief should be filed no later than Friday, September 18, 2015. This

Court will hold a hearing on this matter on September 24, 2015 at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02780-EMC Document 48 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 2