E.L. et al v. Fernandez et al

Filing 144

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/07/25 GRANTING 142 Motion to Modify Settlement. The Court CLARIFIES that the Long Family Settlement Trust is permitted to use plaintiff E.L.'s settlement proceeds to fund the requested annuity policy from Independent Life Insurance Company. (Deputy Clerk VLC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JESSICA LONG, et al.,

12
13

No. 2:22-cv-01527-DAD-AC

Plaintiffs,
v.

14

JERRY FERNANDEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT OF A MINOR’S
CLAIM
(Doc. No. 142)

16
17
18

On February 6, 2025, plaintiff E.L., by and through her mother and guardian ad litem,

19

plaintiff Jessica Long, filed a motion for an order modifying the court’s previous order approving

20

the settlement of a minor’s claims in this action. (Doc. No. 142.) Plaintiffs attached a declaration

21

indicating that defendants have no objection to the pending motion, and no opposition has been

22

filed. (Doc. No. 142-1.)

23

In their motion, plaintiffs explain that to maximize the benefit of plaintiff E.L.’s

24

settlement, her family and an outside firm specializing in settlement management created the

25

Long Family Settlement Trust. (Doc. No. 142 at 5.) Following the court’s previous order,

26

plaintiffs sought to invest the settlement funds into an annuity issued by Independent Life

27

Insurance Company. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiffs have attached an exhibit to their motion which details

28

the annuity they seek to fund. (See Doc. No. 142-4.) However, because the court’s previous
1

1

order stated that “[n]o withdrawals shall be made from the Trust Account, except by plaintiff E.L.

2

when she reaches the age of eighteen (18),” plaintiffs are unable to take advantage of the

3

guaranteed annuity. (Doc. No. 142 at 7) (quoting Doc. No. 113 at 6.) Accordingly, plaintiffs

4

seek a modification to the court’s prior order to allow investment of plaintiff E.L.’s funds into the

5

proposed annuity. (Doc. No. 142 at 7.)

6

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), the court may relieve a party or its legal

7

representative from a final judgment or order for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

8

neglect.” To determine when neglect is excusable, courts examine the following factors: (1) the

9

danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on

10

the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.

11

Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009).

12

Plaintiffs argue that their previous failure to specify the annuity that they seek to fund with

13

plaintiff E.L.’s settlement funds was an error that is “correctable” as excusable neglect. (Doc.

14

No. 142 at 8.) The court agrees. As plaintiffs outline, there is no prejudice to any other party to

15

this case because “whatever E.L. does with her settlement funds has no impact on them.” (Id. at

16

9.) Plaintiffs have also been reasonably diligent in seeking the requested relief, as only about two

17

months passed between the delivery of the settlement funds and the filing of the pending motion,

18

during which time plaintiffs’ attorneys learned from the firm that helped create the Long Family

19

Settlement Trust that it could not facilitate the annuity as planned. (Id.) Finally, there is no

20

evidence of bad faith or ulterior purpose present, as the pending motion simply seeks to accrue

21

interest for plaintiff E.L.’s benefit on her currently uninvested funds. (Id. at 7–9.)
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to modify the settlement of minor plaintiff E.L.’s claims

22
23

(Doc. No. 142) is hereby GRANTED, and the court clarifies that the Long Family Settlement

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

Trust is permitted to use plaintiff E.L.’s settlement proceeds to fund the requested annuity policy

2

from Independent Life Insurance Company (Doc. No. 142-4).

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 7, 2025
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3