K. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington Options ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 BRADLEY K., individually and on behalf of CASE NO. 21-CV-00424-LK 11 M.K., a minor, ORDER REGARDING 12 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED DISMISSAL v. 13 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 14 OF WASHINGTON OPTIONS, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order of 18 Dismissal. Dkt. No. 46. They indicate that “this matter has been settled” and “voluntarily dismissed 19 with prejudice” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Id. at 1. The Court recently cautioned 20 the parties to “review the applicable law prior to filing a notice of dismissal, including the Federal 21 Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rules regarding settlement of cases involving minors.” 22 See March 11, 2022 Docket Entry. 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) provides, in relevant part, that a district court “must 24 appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or 1 incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” The Ninth Circuit has broadly held that, 2 “[i]n the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty 3 requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the 4 best interests of the minor.’” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 5 Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); see also Salmeron v. United States, 6 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that “a court must independently investigate and 7 evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests 8 are protected, even if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or 9 guardian ad litem”). 10 In this District, a court’s review of settlements in suits involving claims of minor plaintiffs 11 is guided by Local Civil Rule 17(c), which requires appointment of an independent guardian ad 12 litem to “investigate the adequacy of the offered settlement and report thereon.” The Court may 13 also “dispense with the appointment of the guardian ad litem if a general guardian has been 14 previously appointed for such minor or incompetent, or if the court affirmatively finds that the 15 minor or incompetent is represented by independent counsel.” LCR 17(c). Here, however, the 16 parties have not identified a basis for the Court to dispense with the appointment of an independent 17 guardian ad litem. See May v. Safeway, Inc., No. 21-CV-00327-BJR, 2021 WL 5414223, at *2 18 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 19, 2021). 19 The Court therefore ORDERS the parties to, within 21 days, (1) petition the Court for 20 appointment of an independent guardian ad litem to review their proposed settlement; or (2) file a 21 brief no longer than eight pages in length explaining why their proposed settlement does not trigger 22 the Court’s special oversight as set forth in the applicable law or why the Court may otherwise 23 dispense with the appointment of a guardian ad litem. 24 1 Dated this 7th day of June, 2022. 2 A 3 Lauren King United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24