Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02780/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02780-8/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, INC., 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 PETITION FOR

APPROVAL OF MINORS’

COMPROMISE

(Docket No. 44)

On August 31, 2015, Plaintiffs petitioned the Court to approve a settlement of the legal

claims of the decedent’s minor children. Docket No. 44. As the Plaintiffs recognized in their filing,

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

Case 3:14-cv-02780-EMC Document 46 Filed 09/01/15 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

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 any of the issues the Court must consider

under Ninth Circuit law. For instance, the Plaintiff has not provided information regarding the

“typical recovery” of minor plaintiffs in similar actions, or detailed the facts of this case and

explained why the proposed settlement amounts are fair and reasonable. Consequently, the

Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to file a supplemental brief, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length,

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

detail the facts of the case, 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 shall be filed no later than

Friday, September 18, 2015. The Court will hold a hearing on this matter on September 24, 2015 at

1:30 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015 _________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02780-EMC Document 46 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 2