Garcia v. United States of America

Filing 41

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS to File Second Supplemental Briefing and Evidence in Support of the Petition for Approval of the Minors' Compromise, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/6/2021. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

RUFINA HILARIO GARCIA, individually
and on behalf of Ce.H.G., M.H.G., P.H.G.,
Ca.H.G., and O.H.G., minors, being the heirs
of and successors-in-interest to SANTO
HILARIO GARCIA and MARCELINA
GARCIA PROFECTO,

14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00093 NONE JLT
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION
FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINORS’
COMPROMISE

19

The plaintiff is seeking approval of settlement of this action on behalf of her minor siblings.

20

(Doc. 37) Previously, the Court ordered supplemental briefing because the petition failed to include

21

necessary information to determine the fairness of the settlement, or whether the settlement is in the

22

best interests of the minor children (Doc. 39).

23

Though the plaintiff filed a supplement (Doc. 40), she failed to address all of the issues raised

24

by the Court. For example, the Court noted that there was no explanation provided whether any of the

25

“initial lump sum” Ms. Garcia is to receive, will be spent on the minors or their care. Instead, the

26

supplement notes only the money will be spent on “(1) “[r]epayment of past and for future expenses as

27

she deems fit” and (2) “[c]osts of repairs to the house that Plaintiffs’ decedent parents owned and in

28

which Plaintiff Rufina Hilario Garcia and the minors will reside when the repairs are completed, and to
1

1

provide temporary housing for the Plaintiffs until such time as the repairs to their house are

2

completed.” (Doc. 40 at 2) There is no description of the “expenses” at issue or whether these were

3

incurred on behalf the children or due to the care Ms. Garcia has provided and will provide to them. If

4

she intends to use these funds to pay for necessities as the children age, there is no showing how the

5

funds will be divided among the children or the fairness to them, if they are not divided. Likewise, she

6

fails to explain why the funds should not be placed in a blocked account for the minors benefit with

7

withdrawals made only upon approval of the Court.

8
9

Finally, there is no indication whether the children have any ownership stake in home where
they live with Ms. Garcia, such that they should be obligated to pay for its repair. On the other hand, if

10

the “initial lump sum” is purely for Ms. Garcia’s use, she has continued to fail to explain why such a

11

payment is appropriate.

12

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds additional information continues to be necessary to

13

evaluate the fairness of the minors’ compromise. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Plaintiffs

14

SHALL file a further supplemental brief and evidence addressing the issues identified above no later

15

than June 18, 2021.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 6, 2021

_ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2