Daigle
Daigle v. City of Oceanside
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRANDON LEE DAIGLE et al., Case No.: 19-CV-1180-BAS(WVG)
Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
v. PETITION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT INVOLVING A
CITY OF OCEANSIDE et al.,
MINOR
Defendants. [Doc. No. 80.] 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ unopposed ex parte motion for approval of a settlement involving a minor, R.A.Q. (or “Minor Plaintiff”). Having considered the moving papers, the Court finds the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the minor. However, Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion is DENIED without prejudice because the attorneys’ fees Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks exceeds the 25% that such fees have historically been limited. The Court will consider a renewed motion that complies with this limitation. / / / / / / / / / I. BACKGROUND A. Allegations1 Minor Plaintiff’s claim arose out of the (1) alleged the false…