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

Filing 65

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 04/30/15 ORDERING that each 64 minor plaintiff's Application for Compromise of Disputed Claims is GRANTED; case is REMANDED to San Joaquin Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER GRANTING EACH MINOR
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR
COMPROMSE OF DISPUTED CLAIMS,
REMANDING THE MATTERS INVOLVING
MINORS AND SETTLEMENT TRUSTS,
AND CLOSING FEDERAL ACTION

Plaintiffs,

14
15

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

J.D. and Z.D., 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;

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.

25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs

J.D.

and

Z.D.,

through

their

mother

and

guardian ad litem Vivica Gonzalez; Vivica Gonzalez; and Graciela
1

1

Arellano seek unopposed approval of a compromise settling their

2

claims against all Defendants. (Appl. for Compromise of Disputed

3

Claims by Minor Pls. (“Application”), ECF No. 59.) Gonzalez was

4

appointed guardian ad litem by the Superior Court of California,

5

in the County of San Joaquin, where the action was filed as No.

6

39-2013-00296353-CU-PO-STK;

7

federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441.

8
9

Plaintiffs

allege

Defendants

removed

Defendants

that

contributed

case

to

to

the

wrongful death of Juan De La Torre, the father of J.D. and Z.D.,

10

who

11

tractor-trailer driven by Defendant Geer. The proposed settlement

12

awards J.D. and Z.D. each $1,100,000, with a net settlement of

13

$599,399 for J.D. and $599,400 for Z.D. after attorneys’ fees and

14

costs are reduced from the referenced gross settlement amounts.

15

(Decl. Shea ISO Pls.’ Application (“Shea Decl.”) Ex. 3, ECF No.

16

64-4 (state court order regarding J.D.); Shea Decl. Ex. 4, ECF

17

No. 64-5 (state court order regarding Z.D.).)

was

killed

after

his

passenger

vehicle

collided

with

a

18

The referenced settlements were approved by the state

19

court from which this case was removed, as required by Local Rule

20

202(b)(1), which prescribes:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In actions in which the minor . . . is
represented by an appointed representative
pursuant to appropriate state law, excepting
only those actions in which the United States
courts
have
exclusive
jurisdiction,
the
settlement or compromise shall first be
approved
by
the
state
court
having
jurisdiction
over
the
personal
representative. Following such approval, a
copy of the order and all supporting and
opposing
documents
filed
in
connection
therewith shall be filed in the District
Court with a copy to all parties and to the
Judge or Magistrate Judge who may either
approve the settlement or compromise without
2

1

hearing or calendar the matter for hearing.

2

The state court approved J.D.’s and Z.D.’s compromises

3

on

April

21,

2015.

(Shea

Decl.

Exs.

3-4.)

I

concur

in

the

4

approval of the settlements.

5

federal court or state court should exercise jurisdiction over

6

the two trusts created by approval of the settlements.

The remaining issue is whether the

7

Each trust will be remanded to the state court from

8

which this lawsuit was removed, since the trusts are established

9

by this order and “both as a matter of comity and to promote

10

justice [for J.D. and Z.D.],” all matters involving J.D. and Z.D.

11

and the administration of each trust should be handled by the

12

state court from which the state case was removed. United Mine

13

Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Each trust

14

includes language concerning the administration of the trusts.

15

Z.D.’s trust states in part that “[w]hen required by the Court or

16

application of the California Probate Code, the Trustee shall

17

file

18

procedures and schedule set forth in the California Probate Code.

19

(Shea Decl. Ex. 4, Ex. 1 p. 7-1.) J.D.’s trust states in part

20

that “[u]nless waived by the Court, the Trustee shall file a

21

periodic Account and Report for court approval in compliance with

22

the procedures and schedule set forth in the California Probate

23

Code.” (Shea Decl. Ex. 3, Ex. 1 p.8.)

a

periodic

For

24

Account

the

stated

and

Report

reasons,

the

in

compliance

referenced

with

matters

the

and

25

trusts are remanded to the Superior Court of California, San

26

Joaquin

27

00296353-CU-PO-STK.

County,

where

the

action

28
3

was

filed

as

No.

39-2013-

1

The federal Clerk of Court shall close this federal

2

action.

3

Dated:

April 30, 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