Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 2, 2021

Green v. City of San Pablo

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:20-cv-06715
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureFamily
In one sentence

In Green v. City of San Pablo, Judge Rogers approved a minor’s settlement and dismissed the case, subject to reopening within 90 days.

Who this affects

Walter Green, the minor plaintiff identified in the caption as L.B., Vanetra Green, and the defendants, including the City of San Pablo.

What happened

In Green v. City of San Pablo, the minor plaintiff’s guardian asked the court to approve a settlement of the minor’s claim. The defendants did not oppose the request.

The court found that the settlement was reasonable and in the minor’s best interest. It therefore approved the minor’s compromise.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the case and canceled remaining deadlines, but ordered that it could be reopened within 90 days if a party properly notified the court and opposing counsel.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Green v. City of San Pablo · No. 4:20-cv-06715
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Nov. 2, 2021

Background

Vanetra Green, acting as guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiff identified in the caption as L.B., filed a petition asking the court to approve a settlement of the minor’s claim. The defendants filed a notice stating that they did not oppose the petition. The court reviewed the filings, including declarations from plaintiffs’ counsel.

Ruling

The court found that the settlement terms were reasonable and in the minor’s best interest. It granted the petition for approval of the minor’s compromise.

The court then dismissed the case, vacated all remaining dates and deadlines, and ordered that the dismissal could be vacated and the case restored to the calendar if any party properly notified the court and opposing counsel within 90 days from the order’s date that the case should be reopened. The order also vacated the hearing set for November 9, 2021.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.