De La Torre et al v. Swift Transportation Company et al

Filing 61

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/29/15: Supplemental briefing and proposed order shall be filed as soon as feasible, but no later than February 16, 2015. Hearing re 58 APPLICATION set for 3/2/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

J.D.L.T and Z.D.L.T.,
individually and as decedent
Juan De La Torre’s successors
in interest, minors by and
through their Guardian Ad
Litem, VIVICA GONZALEZ;
VIVICA GONZALEZ, an
individual; and GRACIELA
ARELLANO, an individual,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

No. 2:13-cv-1786-GEB-DAD

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING ON REQUEST FOR AN ORDER
APPROVING SETTLEMENT OF EACH
MINOR’S CLAIMS

Plaintiffs,
v.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,
a publicly traded Delaware
corporation; SWIFT
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Company;
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF
ARIZONA, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company;
INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT LEASING,
LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; EDWARD
GREER, JR., an individual;
SWIFT LEASING CO., LLC (DOE
No. 1); FIERRO TRUCKING II,
LLC (DOE No. 2); and JOSE
ANGEL MARTINEZ (DOE No. 3),
Defendants.

28
1

1

The minor Plaintiffs, through their guardian ad litem

2

and

mother

3

settling

4

appointed as each minor’s guardian ad litem in the California

5

state court.

6
7

Vivica

their

Gonzalez,

claims

However,

a

seek

against

approval

the

supplemental

of

a

Defendants.1

filing

is

compromise

Gonzales

ordered

on

was

the

following issues.

8

The movants shall address the applicability of Local

9

Rule 202(b)(1), which states in relevant part: “In actions in

10

which

the

minor.

11

representative pursuant to appropriate state law, excepting only

12

those actions in which the United States courts have exclusive

13

jurisdiction,

14

approved by the state court having jurisdiction over the personal

15

representative.”

the

.

.

is

settlement

represented

or

compromise

by

an

shall

appointed

first

be

16

The movants shall address all components of Local Rule

17

202(c), which states: “When the minor. . . is represented by an

18

attorney, it shall be disclosed to the Court by whom and the

19

terms under which the attorney was employed; whether the attorney

20

become involved in the application at the instance of the party

21

against

22

indirectly; whether the attorney stands in any relationship to

23

that party; and, whether the attorney has received or expects to

24

receive any compensation, from whom, and the amount.”

25
26
27
28

whom

the

Since

causes

the

of

movants

action

are

indicate

1

asserted,

that

directly

approval

of

or

the

The movants failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
5.2(a)(3), which states in relevant part: “Unless the court orders otherwise,
. . . filing[s] with the court that contain. . . the name of an individual
known to be a minor. . . shall include only. . . the minor’s initials.”
Further filings shall comply with this rule.

2

1

proposed settlement resolves this federal lawsuit, the issue is

2

raised sua sponte whether all issues involving the administration

3

of

4

remanded to the state court. See generally United Mine Workers of

5

Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (“Needless decisions of

6

state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to

7

promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a

8

surer-footed reading of applicable law.”); Guerrero v. Brentwood

9

Union Sch. Dist., No. C 13-03873 LB, 2014 WL 1351208, at *5 (N.D.

10

Cal. Apr. 4, 2014) (“Venue for on-going oversight of the special

11

needs trusts established by this order shall be with the . . .

12

County Superior Court, and the trustees of the trusts shall file

13

an account and report with that Court in the manner and frequency

14

called for by California Probate Code.”).

each

trust

15

under

Further,

the

the

California

movants

have

Code

should

not

included

in

v.

Rosengren,

be

their

16

application

information

that

17

1177,

(9th

2011)

18

specifically the application does not sufficiently address why

19

the movants opine that the “net amount distributed to each minor

20

plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of

21

the

22

recovery in similar cases.”

1181

facts

of

the

Cir.

case,

Robidoux

Probate

indicates

[each]

minor's

should

be

specific

638

F.3d

addressed;

claim,

and

23

Lastly, the movants filing shall include the proposed

24

order they desire the federal court to sign in response to their

25

application.

26

The referenced supplemental briefing and proposed order

27

shall be filed as soon as feasible, but no later than February

28

16, 2015; any response shall be filed no later than three court
3

1

days after the supplemental brief is filed; a hearing on the

2

matter is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on March 2, 2015.

3

Dated:

January 29, 2015

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4