Mario V. v. Alisal Union School District

Background

Several students and parents filed a proposed class action after Henry Armenta, identified as a teacher, performed blood-sugar testing on students without their parents’ consent. After motion practice, Armenta was the only defendant remaining. Plaintiffs notified potentially affected families about the lawsuit but received no responses.

Because no class had been certified, the parties settled only the individual claims of the named minor plaintiffs. Armenta’s limited financial resources were identified as a reason for the settlement. Under the agreement, Armenta would pay $1,000 to each of four minor plaintiffs, totaling $4,000. No settlement funds would be used to pay costs or attorney fees.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) was not required for a settlement reached before class certification when only individual claims were being resolved. Court approval was required, however, for the compromise of the minors’ claims. The court’s review was limited to whether each minor’s recovery was fair and reasonable and whether the settlement protected the minors’ interests.

The court found that the proposed $1,000 payment to each minor was fair and reasonable under the circumstances and in the minors’ best interests.

Disposition

The court granted Plaintiffs’ Petition for Approval of Settlement for Named Minor Plaintiffs. It stated that the proposed order approving the minors’ compromise and directing that the settlement funds be deposited into a blocked account for each minor would issue concurrently. The court also vacated the June 2, 2022 hearing and terminated docket entry 112. The judge’s name is not fully readable in the provided signature.