P. v. Holy Names University
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-03014
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In P. v. Holy Names University, Judge Tigar said he would approve J.P.’s settlement if the appeals court returned the case.
The ruling concerns minor J.P.’s proposed settlement, M.P. as J.P.’s guardian ad litem, Holy Names University and Denise Saddler, and the pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit.
What happened
In M. P. v. Holy Names University, M.P., J.P.’s guardian appointed by the court, filed the lawsuit for J.P. The court had previously granted Holy Names University and Denise Saddler’s request for judgment without a trial, and J.P. appealed that judgment.
While the appeal was pending, the parties reached a settlement. J.P. agreed to dismiss the appeal and not bring additional claims, while the defendants agreed to give up their request for attorney’s fees and costs. The defendants did not oppose J.P.’s request for approval of the settlement involving a minor.
Because the appeal was still pending, the district court could not directly decide the request. Judge Jon S. Tigar issued a ruling stating that he would grant the request if the Ninth Circuit returned the case for that purpose, because the settlement was in J.P.’s best interest. J.P. must promptly notify the Ninth Circuit of the ruling.
The detailed version
- P. v. Holy Names University · No. 4:21-cv-03014
- Jon Tigar
- Oct. 23, 2023
Background
M.P., the guardian ad litem for minor J.P., filed this action in April
- The court granted Holy Names University and Denise Saddler’s motion for summary judgment on April 6,
- J.P. appealed the judgment on April 20,
- The defendants filed a motion for attorney’s fees the same day.
On August 17, 2023, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement and asked the court to delay deciding the attorney’s-fee motion. The court granted that request. J.P. then filed a motion for approval of a minor’s compromise. The motion stated that J.P. would dismiss the appeal and not file additional claims, while the defendants would release their claim for fees and costs. The defendants did not oppose the motion.
Court’s Authority During the Appeal
The appeal remained pending in the Ninth Circuit. The court explained that filing a notice of appeal generally gives the appeals court control over the parts of the case involved in the appeal and removes the district court’s control over those matters. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 allows a district court that lacks authority to grant a motion because of a pending appeal to issue an indicative ruling stating either that it would grant the motion if the appeals court remands the case or that the motion raises a substantial issue.
Indicative Ruling
The court found that the settlement served the best interests of minor J.P. It therefore stated that it would grant the motion for approval of the minor’s compromise if the Ninth Circuit remanded the action for that purpose. The court did not itself approve the compromise at that time. Under Rule 62.1, J.P. was required to promptly notify the Ninth Circuit clerk of the indicative ruling, and the district court could rule on the motion only if the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for that purpose.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.