M.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 A. M., et al., Case No. 19-cv-06008-TSH

Plaintiffs, ORDER APPROVING MINOR'S v. COMPROMISE

MAXIMUS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, Re: Dkt. No. 40 LTD., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Pending before the Court is Guardian Ad Litem Karla Maddox’s Motion for Approval of Minor’s Compromise, in which Maddox requests the Court approve the settlement for A.M. in the amount of $7,500. ECF No. 40. No opposition has been filed. “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). “In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.’” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). “In other words, in…