E.P.E. et al v. United States of America

1
24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
1
2
3
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
E.P.E. on her own behalf and on
behalf of her minor child, E.E.B.P. et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
Case No.: 24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
ORDER REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
On December 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Petition for Approval of
Terms of Trust for Minor Plaintiffs and a Petition to Approve the Settlement of
Minors’ Claims. 	Dkt. Nos. 52 and 53. 	When evaluating a settlement involving
minors, District courts have a duty to safeguard the interests of minors in litigation.
See Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) (noting “the
court in which a minor’s claims are being litigated has a duty to protect the minor’s
interests”).1 When parties settle an action involving a minor litigant, the Court must
1 Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, citations,
footnotes, and parallel reporter citations are omitted from citations.
Case 3:24-cv-00312-AGS-MSB Document 55 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
24-cv-312-AGS-MSB
1
2
3
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
“conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best
interests of the minor.” 	Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir.
2011); 	see also 	CivLR 17.1(a) (requiring the Court to review any proposed
settlement of a minor’s claims). For claims arising under federal law, the scope of
the Court’s inquiry should be limited to “the question whether the net amount
distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light
of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.”
Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. 	In assessing the fairness of the minor plaintiff’s net
recovery, the Court cannot consider the “proportion of the total settlement value
designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district
court has no special duty to safeguard.” 	Id. 	The Court must independently
evaluate the fairness of the settlement “even if [it] has been recommended or
negotiated by the minor’s parent or guardian ad litem.” 	Salmeron, 724 F.2d at
1363.
The Ninth Circuit requires the Court to consider the fairness of a minor
plaintiff’s settlement in comparison to recoveries in similar cases. 	Robidoux, 638
F.3d at 1182. Here, Plaintiffs have not addressed the issue or identified any similar
cases. See Dkt. Nos. 52 and 53. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file
supplemental briefing addressing the issue and identifying recoveries in similar
cases by January 20, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	January 13, 2026
Hon. David D. Leshner
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-00312-AGS-MSB Document 55 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2