Martinez v. Nienow

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 BRENDA MARTINEZ; PEDRO Case No.: 3:23-cv-02338-RBM-AHG BERNAL; and A.B., a minor, by and — 12 — through her Guardian ad Litem, ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 13 William J. Phippard, JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 Plaintiffs, 15 vs. [Docs. 4, 24] 16 M.D. SHALON NIENOW; M.D. SARAH VEGA; M.D. NATALIE — 17 — LAUB; RADY CHILDREN'S 18 HOSPITAL; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; SOCIAL WORKER 1; — 19 — SOCIAL WORKER 2; and DOES 1 20 through 50, inclusive, 21 Defendants. — 22 — 23 On December 27, 2023, Plaintiffs Brenda Martinez, Pedro Bernal, and A.B., a minor, 24 by and through her Guardian ad Litem, William J. Phippard (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), 25 filed a Complaint for Damages (“Complaint”) against Defendants M.D. Shalon Nienow, 26 M.D. Sarah Vega, M.D. Natalie Laub, Rady Children’s Hospital, County of San Diego, 27 Social Worker 1, Social Worker 2, and DOES 1–50 (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 28 1.) On January 9, 2024, Phippard, on behalf of minor Plaintiff A.B., filed a Petition to 1 Approve Minors’ Interest in the Settlement of Action with the County of San Diego 2 (“Petition”). (Doc. 4.) On April 15, 2024, Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard issued a 3 Recommendation for Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Approve 4 Minor’s Compromise and Approving Alternative Settlement Structure (“Report and 5 Recommendation”). (Doc. 24.) Judge Goddard ordered that any objections to the Report 6 and Recommendation be filed by April 29, 2024. (Id. at 18.) No objections were filed as 7 of April 29, 2024. 8 A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 9 and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) 10 and 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Rule 72(b) provides in part: 11 (2) Objections. Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written — 12 — objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. … — 13 — (3) Resolving Objections. The district judge must determine de novo any part — 14 — of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. — 15 — 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (emphasis added). Likewise, 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) provides in 17 part: 18 Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as — 19 — provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo 20 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. — 21 — — 22 — 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) (emphasis added). 23 When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate 24 judge’s report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 , 25 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (reasoning that 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) “makes it clear that the 26 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s finding and recommendations de novo if 27 objection is made, but not otherwise.”) (emphasis added); Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992 , 28 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a [report and recommendation] 1 only required when an objection is made to the [report and recommendation] ....’’) 2 || (citation omitted); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (adopting 3 ||the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation without review because neither party 4 ||filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so). Additionally, courts in this 5 || district routinely adopt magistrate judges’ reports and recommendations on petitions to 6 ||approve or confirm a minor’s compromise. See e.g., R.N. by & through Neel v. United 7 || States, Case No. 17-cv-1583-L-BGS, 2020 WL 9424650 , at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2020) 8 || (adopting Magistrate Judge Goddard’s report and recommendation on a plaintiff's ex parte 9 || application to confirm minor’s compromise of all claims asserted in the action); Lisicky v. 10 || USAA Cas. Ins. Co., Case No. 18-cv-1642 W (AGS), 2019 WL 5098877 , at *1 (S.D. Cal. 11 }}Aug. 12, 2019) (adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation approving a 12 ||minor’s compromise); Carroll v. Sparhawk, Case No. 17cv2020-CAB-AGS, 2019 WL 13 || 763876, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2019) (adopting magistrate judge’s report and 14 || recommendation grating order approving compromise of claim of minors). 15 Here, neither party has timely filed objections to Magistrate Judge Goddard’s Report 16 Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge 17 || Goddard’s Report and Recommendation, (2) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 18 ||the Petition as set forth in the Report and Recommendation, and (3) APPROVES an 19 || alternative settlement structure as set forth in the Report and Recommendation, resulting 20 ||in a gross settlement amount of $50,000, less $15,000 in attorney fees, for a net recovery 21 || of $35,000 to be paid to minor Plaintiff A.B. pursuant to Cal. Prob. Code § 361 □□□□□ 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||DATE: April 30, 2024 24 Bestel, tery 5 HON. RUTH BERMUBEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 26 — — 27 — — 28 — — 3 —