Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California directed plaintiffs to file supplemental briefing concerning their unopposed motion for approval of a minors’ compromise. The court required comparable recovery amounts from similar cases to support the contention that the proposed settlements for the minor plaintiffs were fair and reasonable.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the motion for approval of the minors' compromise contained sufficient information for the court to determine whether the proposed settlements were fair and reasonable.
- Whether plaintiffs should be required to provide comparable recovery amounts from similar cases in supplemental briefing.
Holdings
- Under Eastern District of California Local Rule 202(b), an application for approval of a proposed settlement must provide additional information necessary for the court to determine the fairness of the compromise, including comparable recovery amounts when relevant.
Key quotations
“The application [for approval of a proposed settlement] shall disclose . . . such additional information as may be required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement or compromise.” (at 1)
Factual background
Plaintiffs Afraa Al Eesa, A.A.K., and Y.A.K. filed an unopposed motion seeking approval of a compromise involving the two minor plaintiffs. The motion did not identify decisions approving comparable settlements or provide comparable recovery amounts for the court's fairness analysis.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs sought approval of a proposed settlement involving two minor plaintiffs. Because the motion did not cite decisions approving comparable settlements, the court ordered plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing addressing comparable recovery amounts and the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed settlements.