CLAY
v.
IH4 PROPERTY FLORIDA, L.P.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the parties' petition to approve a minor's settlement because the executed settlement agreement was not provided, and the parties failed to provide legal authority for a non-disclosure provision.
The parties filed a joint petition seeking court approval for a settlement involving a minor plaintiff. The court noted that it did not have the actua…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse State Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
The parties filed an Agreed Petition for Order Authorizing Settlement of Minor’s Personal Injury Claim (Doc. 58). In the Petition, the parties request that the Court approve the settlement reached between the parties, which includes a settlement with the minor Plaintiff S.C. (Id., pp. 1-2). For the reasons below, the Court finds it cannot approve the settlement as proposed. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings both federal and state claims. (See Doc. 11). When approving a settlement in federal court, “‘the cardinal rule is that the District Court must find that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable and is not the product of collusion between the parties.’” In re Smith, 926 F. 2d 1027, 1029 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). By contrast, under Florida law, when reviewing a settlement that includes a minor, a court’s inquiry is limited to whether the settlement is in the best interests of the minor. Meyers v. United States, No. 6:13-
CV-1555-ORL, 2014 WL 5038585, *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2014). Here, the Court is not called upon to determine whether approval of the settlement is required for the minor Plaintiff under the Fair Housing Act claim. Nor is the Court required to answer the Erie1 question of whether Florida-law requirements apply to approving the settlement of a minor’s state-law claims.2 But in the interests of finality and both judicial and litigant economy, the Court may approve a minor’s settlement without deciding these issues so that the settlement will not be subject to any attack for lack of court approval. The problem is the parties ask the Court to approve a proposed settlement entered into—in part—for the benefit of the minor, S.C. The Court does not have the actual, executed settlement agreement between the parties. As a result, the Court will require the parties to file the entire executed settlement agreement that contains any releases before it will consider whether to approve the settlement. In that vein, when submitting an amended joint motion for settlement approval, the parties must supply legal authority that the non-disclosure provision in the Full and Final Release
Lida E La ell.
NICHOLAS P. MIZEL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938)
- Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001)
- In re Smith, 926 F.2d 1027 (11th Cir. 1991)