M. v. Maximus Real Estate Partners, LTD.

Background

Guardian ad litem Karla Maddox moved for approval of a settlement resolving A.M.’s claims for $7,500. The opinion does not state the full terms of the settlement. It says that confidential amounts were separately allocated to settle A.M.’s parents’ claims and to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses. No opposition was filed.

Court’s analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), the court has a special duty to protect minors’ interests. The court therefore independently evaluated whether the proposed settlement served A.M.’s best interests, focusing on A.M.’s net recovery and considering the facts of the case, the nature of A.M.’s claim, the likelihood of success, and similar settlements.

The court found the $7,500 settlement fair and reasonable. It relied on the favorable opinions of the guardian ad litem and plaintiffs’ counsel and noted that the amount was consistent with similar settlements involving denial of fair-housing rights. The court also noted that, because of A.M.’s disability, she could go outside only with her parent’s help. The entire $7,500 allocated to A.M. would go to her parents to use for her needs. Because the parties’ agreement separately addressed attorneys’ fees and other payments, the court did not separately determine a fee amount under California Rule of Court 7.955.

Disposition

Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered that the motion to approve the minor’s compromise was GRANTED. Counsel for A.M. was instructed to complete the settlement and obtain and distribute the $7,500 to Karla Maddox and Howard Maddox, identified as A.M.’s custodial parents, for A.M.’s needs. Proof of compliance, accompanied by either a proposed judgment or a written request for dismissal, had to be filed within 28 days of the order’s issuance.