Huff v. Thousandshores, Inc.

Background

Anthony Huff, the Estate of J.H., and a minor child sued Thousandshores, Inc., Shenzhen Thousandshores Technology Co., Ltd., and Amazon.com Services, LLC in a product-liability action. The complaint alleged that twenty-three-month-old Johnathan Huff died after swallowing a lithium-ion button battery that fell from an “ESKY” wireless key finder remote. The opinion states that the minor child is Johnathan’s brother and is represented by his father.

The parties reported a settlement, and they executed an agreement that resolved the issues and disputes in the action and released claims connected to the incident that could have been brought by the plaintiffs or other family members. The settlement required court approval of the portion involving the minor child. The plaintiffs also sought to seal limited portions of their approval motion and a supporting declaration.

Court’s analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), a court has a special duty to protect a minor who is involved in a lawsuit. The court therefore independently reviews a proposed settlement to determine whether it serves the minor’s best interests. The review includes whether the net amount the minor will receive is fair and reasonable in light of the facts, the minor’s claim, and recoveries in similar cases.

The proposed settlement allocated amounts to Anthony Huff, Jacqueline Huff, the Estate of J.H., and the minor child. The opinion’s provided text does not display the dollar amounts. It states that 45% of the minor’s allocation would be paid to Buche & Associates, P.C., and that the minor’s net settlement would be placed in a fiduciary irrevocable trust.

The minor asserted a bystander claim based on observing the events and suffering emotional distress. Considering the minor’s young age and the absence of appreciable medical expenses for injuries, the court found the net settlement reasonable. It also found the attorneys’ recovery reasonable based on their experience and the risks and costs involved in representing the plaintiffs in a potentially complex and lengthy product-liability case.

For the sealing request, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard because approval of the settlement would likely terminate the lawsuit. The court had previously denied an earlier request to seal the motion, settlement agreement, and declaration in their entirety because the plaintiffs had not provided compelling reasons. The court found compelling reasons to seal the amount the minor would receive, citing the minor’s privacy interests and the risk of unwanted solicitation when the child could control the funds.

Ruling

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the motion to approve the compromise of the action and granted the associated motion to seal. The parties were directed to file a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) by January 14, 2022. Docket No. 25 was terminated as moot.