Mendez et al v. General Motors, LLC et al

Filing 102

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 99 the parties' Motion to Approve Settlement for Minor Y.R.; extending the deadline for filing a stipulation of dismissal to 4/17/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson on 3/10/2025. (ols, Deputy Clerk)

Case 1:22-cv-00853-JMC

Document 102

Filed 03/10/25

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ENIL DONAIRE MENDEZ, et al.,

*

Plaintiffs,

*

v.

*

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,

*

Defendant.

*

Civil Case No. 1:22-cv-00853-JMC

*
*******
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This product liability case arises from a single-vehicle collision involving five occupants
in which Plaintiffs allege unintended acceleration of a 2005 Chevrolet Silverado. (ECF No. 5).
The parties report that they reached a confidential settlement agreement resolving all of Plaintiffs’
claims on May 9, 2024. Currently pending before the Court is the parties’ Motion to Approve
Settlement for Minor Y.R. (ECF No. 99). 1 The motion is unopposed, and no hearing is necessary.
See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2023). For the reasons set forth immediately below, the motion shall be
GRANTED.
Pursuant to Maryland Rule 3-202, “a next friend who files an action for the benefit of a
minor may settle the claim on behalf of the minor.” If both parents of the minor are deceased, as
is the case in the instant matter, the settlement must be approved by the Court. A similar provision
is set forth in Maryland’s Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud.
Proc. § 6-405.

1

The Court shall refer to Minor Plaintiff Y.R. by her initials, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.

Case 1:22-cv-00853-JMC

Document 102

Filed 03/10/25

Page 2 of 3

The Court has reviewed the parties’ joint motion to include their discussion of allocation,
and concludes that the settlement of Minor Plaintiff Y.R.’s claims is fair and reasonable. The Court
notes that this is a complex products liability case involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants.
Such cases, by their nature, increase both the litigation expenses attendant to taking this matter to
trial, and the uncertainty involved in forecasting a trial outcome. It is also significant that all
parties are represented by experienced trial counsel, giving the Court further comfort that this was
a true arms-length negotiation. Finally, the Court further observes that the minor Plaintiff’s
guardian has submitted formal verification that in the guardian’s opinion, this settlement is in the
best interest of the minor Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Motion to Approve Settlement (ECF No. 99)
shall be GRANTED.
The undersigned additionally notes that the parties have also filed a Motion to Seal the
Motion to Approve Settlement. (ECF No. 98). The Court may not rule upon a motion to seal until
at least fourteen days after it is filed. See Loc. R. 105.11 (“The Court will not rule upon the motion
[to seal] until at least fourteen (14) days after it is entered on the public docket to permit the filing
of objections by interested parties.”). However, in that motion the parties request that the current
deadline for filing a stipulation of dismissal be extended by thirty days, from March 17, 2025, to
April 17, 2025, so as to allow time for the Court’s rulings on the pending motions and issuance of
the settlement funds. This request shall also be GRANTED.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that:
1) The parties Motion to Approve Settlement for Minor Y.R. (ECF No. 99) is GRANTED;
and
2) The deadline for filing a stipulation of dismissal is extended to April 17, 2025.

2

Case 1:22-cv-00853-JMC

Document 102

Filed 03/10/25

Page 3 of 3

SO ORDERED.

/s/
___________________________
J. Mark Coulson
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: March 10, 2025

3