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 DISMISSING CASE AND 12 Plaintiff, DENYING UNOPPOSED MOTION v. TO CHANGE CAPTION AND 13 APPROVE SETTLEMENT KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 14 OF WASHINGTON OPTIONS, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Change Caption 18 and Approve Settlement. Dkt. No. 48. On June 7, 2022, the Court ordered the parties to either 19 (1) petition the Court for appointment of an independent guardian ad litem to review their proposed 20 settlement or (2) file a brief explaining why their proposed settlement does not trigger the Court’s 21 special oversight. Dkt. No. 47 at 2; see LCR 17(c); Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 22 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff now avers that there is “no need for the appointment of a [g]uardian ad 23 litem” because M.K. “is not a minor nor was he a minor at the time of the filing of the Complaint[.]” 24 Dkt. No. 48 at 1; see id. at 2–3 (“Because M.K. had turned 18 years old in March of 2020, M.K. 1 was an adult and at the time of filing the caption of the case should have identified him as an adult. 2 Plaintiff’s counsel regrets the error.”). 3 Plaintiff believes that the proper remedy is to amend the caption to include M.K. as a named 4 plaintiff “and then approve the stipulated settlement.” Id. at 1, 4. He also asks the Court to dismiss 5 the action. Id. at 4. 6 Because M.K. was an adult at all material times, the Court’s special duty is not triggered, 7 meaning it does not need to approve the settlement. Nor is it necessary to amend the caption; the 8 facts of the complaint support Plaintiff’s contentions regarding M.K.’s age. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 2 9 at 3 (noting that “prior to high school,” M.K. had been a high performer, but in 2016 (presumably 10 when he was in high school) he became depressed and started missing school). The Court therefore 11 DENIES Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Change Caption and Approve Settlement. Dkt. No. 48. 12 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and proposed order of dismissal, Dkt. No. 46, their clarification 13 of M.K.’s age, Dkt. No. 48, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), this case is 14 DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs. 15 Dated this 28th day of June, 2022. 16 A 17 Lauren King United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24