1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 MARIO V., et al., Case No. 18-cv-00041-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF

9 v. SETTLEMENT FOR NAMED MINOR

PLAINTIFFS; AND VACATING

10 HENRY ARMENTA, JUNE 2, 2022 HEARING 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF 112]

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Petition for Approval of Settlement for Named Minor 14 Plaintiffs. See Pet., ECF 112. Defendant Henry Armenta has filed a Statement of Non- 15 Opposition. See Def.’s Statement of Non-Opp., ECF 113. The Court finds the Petition suitable for 16 determination without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The June 2, 2022 hearing on the 17 Petition is VACATED. The Petition is GRANTED for the reasons discussed below. 18 After Armenta, a teacher, performed blood sugar testing on students without their parents’ 19 consent, several students and parents filed this putative class action against Armenta and others. 20 See Compl., ECF 1. Although Plaintiffs sent notice of the suit to potentially affected families, 21 they received no responses. See Bonner Decl. ¶¶ 4-8, ECF 112-1. After motion practice, Armenta 22 is the only defendant remaining in the case. Given the lack of response from potential class 23 members, and Armenta’s limited financial resources, Plaintiffs have entered into a settlement with 24 Armenta as to their individual claims only. See Bonner Decl. ¶ 11. Under the settlement, 25 Armenta will pay $1,000 to each of the four minor Plaintiffs for a total of $4,000. See id. ¶ 12 & 26 Exh. 2. No funds from the settlement will be deducted for payment of costs or attorneys’ fees. 27 See id. The parties have agreed that once the settlement is finalized, they will submit a stipulation 1 Although this suit was filed as a putative class action, no class has been certified and 2 || Plaintiffs have agreed to settlement of their individual claims only. Consequently, Federal Rule of 3 Civil Procedure 23(e)’s requirement of court approval for settlement of a certified class does not 4 apply. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e), Advisory Comm. Notes to 2003 Amendment (The “rule 5 || requires approval only if the claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class are resolved by a 6 settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise.”); Valenzuela v. Mauser USA, LLC, No. 1:20-cv- 7 |} 00094-NONE-SAB, 2021 WL 916412, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021) (internal quotation marks 8 and citation omitted) (“Rule 23(e) does not apply to settlements or dismissals that occur before 9 || class certification.”). The Court’s approval is required for the proposed compromise of the minor 10 || Plaintiffs’ claims, however. “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of 11 Civil Procedure 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. 12 || Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court’s inquiry is limited to 5 13 || considering whether each minor plaintiff's recovery is “fair and reasonable.” /d. at 1182. The 14 || Court is satisfied that the settlement is in the minor Plaintiffs’ best interests and that the proposed 3 15 || distribution of $1,000 to each minor is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. 16 The Court will issue the proposed order submitted by Plaintiffs, approving the minors’ 3 17 compromise and directing that the settlement funds be deposited in to a blocked account for each 18 minor, concurrently with the present order. 19 ORDER 20 (1) Plaintiffs’ Petition for Approval of Settlement for Named Minor Plaintiffs is 21 GRANTED; 22 (2) Plaintiffs’ proposed Order on Plaintiffs’ Petition for Approval of Settlement for 23 Named Minor Plaintiffs will issue concurrently with the present order; and 24 (2) This order terminates ECF 112. 25 26 || Dated: May 24, 2022 heh Ll conan

ETH LABSON FREEMAN

27 United States District Judge 28