observing that failure to apply state law regarding the settlement of a minor’s claim “would result in an ‘inequitable administration’ of the laws”
How later courts described this case
- observing that failure to apply state law regarding the settlement of a minor’s claim “would result in an ‘inequitable administration’ of the laws”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
P.W., individually, and as Parent
and Natural Guardian of B.W.,
a minor,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 3:20-cv-1464-MMH-MCR
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Motion for Order Authorizing
Settlement of Minor’s Claim Against Duval County School Board (Doc. 30;
DCSB Motion), filed on August 25, 2022, and the In Camera Motion for Order
Authorizing Settlement of Minor’s Claim Against ESS Southeast, LLC., and
Holly Sheffield Thomas (Doc. 36; ESS Motion). In the Motions, Plaintiff P.W.,
individually and as the parent and natural guardian of B.W., her minor child,
seeks this Court’s approval of the settlements of the claims brought in the
above-styled cause against Defendant Duval County School Board (DCSB), see
DCSB Motion at 1, and Defendants ESS Southeast, LLC and Holly Sheffield
Thomas, see ESS Motion at 1. Plaintiff represents to the Court that
Defendants have no objection to the relief requested in the Motions. See DCSB
Motion at 4; ESS Motion at 4. Upon review, the Court finds it necessary to
deny the Motions without prejudice to the filing of renewed motions which
address the issues identified below.
Under Florida law,1 the settlement of an action commenced by or on
behalf of a minor child is not effective “unless approved by the court having
jurisdiction of the action.” See Fla. Stat. § 744.387(3)(a). The purpose of this
requirement is to “protect the interests of the minor and the guardian and to
ensure that any release given on behalf of the minor is legally effective.” See
McLaughlin v. Lara, 133 So. 3d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2013). In
reviewing the settlement, the Court must determine whether the settlement is
in the best interests of the minor child. See Bullard v. Sharp, 707 So. 2d 1023,
1024 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1981); see also Fla. Stat. § 744.387(1). In doing
1 The Court acknowledges that as a case filed in federal court arising in part under
federal law, it is arguable whether Florida law regarding the approval of a minor’s settlement
agreement applies to this action. See Garcia v. United States, No. 2:16-cv-168-FtM-38MRM,
2018 WL 889433, at *2 n.3. (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2018) adopted by 2018 WL 838975, at *1 (M.D.
Fla. Feb. 13, 2018); see also Casey v. Gartland, No. 2:18cv890-MHT, 2020 WL 4470444, at *1
(M.D. Ala. Aug. 4, 2020) (“It is unclear whether federal or state law governs whether a federal
court should approve the settlement of a federal claim brought by, or otherwise implicating
the interest of, a minor . . . .”); Meyers v. United States, No. 6:13-cv-1555-Orl-41TBS, 2014 WL
5038585, at *2-4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2014). Regardless, the Court finds it both useful and
appropriate to follow state law when asked to approve a minor’s settlement given that state
law on the relevant issues “is well developed, while federal law on these issues is limited.”
See Meyers, 2014 WL 503585, at *4; Casey, 2020 WL 4470444, at *1 (applying state law in
reviewing settlement of a minor’s federal claim because state law is “fairly settled and easily
discernable” and because federal law, to the extent it applied, was unlikely to be substantively
or procedurally different in any material way).
so, the Court considers whether the settlement is “‘fair, adequate and
reasonable and is not the product of collusion between the parties.’” See In re
Smith, 926 F.2d 1027, 1029 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d
1326, 1330 (5th Cir. 1977)).
Significantly, “before approving a settlement of the minor’s claim in a case
in which the gross settlement involving a minor equals or exceeds $50,000,”
Florida law requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the
minor’s interest. See Fla. Stat. § 744.3025(b); Fla. Prob. R. 5.636(d). Here,
although the gross settlement proceeds to the minor child far exceed $50,000,
Plaintiff has not requested or obtained a guardian ad litem to represent the
minor. Plaintiff appears to contend that a guardian ad litem is not necessary
under the circumstances of this case and asserts that, under Rule 17 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]here there is no conflict between the ward
and [her] natural parents, there is no need to appoint a guardian ad litem . . . .”
See DCSB Motion at 3 (citing Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir.
2001)); ESS Motion at 3 (same).2 Nevertheless, even if the Court is not
2 In Burke v. Smith, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that “‘[t]he
appointment of a guardian ad litem is a procedural question controlled by Rule 17(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’” and explained that “[g]enerally, when a minor is
represented by a parent who is a party to the lawsuit and who has the same interests as the
child there is no inherent conflict of interest.” See Burke, 252 F.3d at 1264. Notably, Burke
concerned the settlement of a minor’s claim under Alabama law and does not specifically
address the requirements of Florida law discussed here. Moreover, notwithstanding its
decision on guardianship, the court in Burke rejected the contention that Rule 17 otherwise
governed the capacity of a minor to enter a settlement. Id. at 1265-66.
required to appoint a guardian ad litem, the Court has discretion to do so and,
as noted above, the Court finds it prudent to follow the requirements of Florida
law on these matters. Indeed, the Court can discern no reason why minors in
federal court should receive fewer protections than those proceeding in state
court. See Burke, 252 F.3d at 1266 (observing that failure to apply state law
regarding the settlement of a minor’s claim “would result in an ‘inequitable
administration’ of the laws”).
In light of the foregoing, the Court will deny the Motions without
prejudice to the filing of renewed motions that comply with the requirements of
Florida law governing the settlement of a minor’s claim.3 The Court notes that
the current Motions are also deficient in that Plaintiff fails to provide the Court
with “copies of all agreements, releases, or other documents to be executed on
behalf of the minor.” See Fla. Probate R. 5.636(b)(7). In addition, the DCSB
Motion appears to contain a significant error in its description of how the funds
will be disbursed between P.W. and B.W. which requires clarification. See
DCSB Motion at 3, e. and f. Thus, any renewed motions must address these
deficiencies as well.4 Accordingly, it is
3 The Court acknowledges that B.W. will reach the age of majority in a matter of
months. Thus, in the alternative, the parties may seek a stay of this action until such time
as B.W. is no longer a minor and can enter the settlement on her own behalf.
4 Given the privacy concerns of the minor, Plaintiff may submit copies of the
agreements for the Court’s review to the undersigned’s chambers email address.
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Order Authorizing Settlement of Minor’s Claim
Against Duval County School Board (Doc. 30) and In Camera Motion for
Order Authorizing Settlement of Minor’s Claim Against ESS Southeast,
LLC., and Holly Sheffield Thomas (Doc. 36) are DENIED without
prejudice to filing a renewed motion that addresses the issues identified
in this Order.
2. Plaintiff shall have up to and including November 10, 2022, to file
appropriate motions.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this case
pending further Order of the Court.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 25th day of
October, 2022.
United States District Judge
Ie11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record