# Dionisio v. Dacanay and Reynaldo C. Dacanay, by His Father and Next Friend v. Saturnina Mendoza, Victor P. Mendoza, and Doe Insurance Co. No. 1

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · April 26, 1978 · 573 F.2d 1075

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464704

## Case

- **Full name:** Dionisio v. DACANAY and Reynaldo C. Dacanay, by His Father and Next Friend, Appellants, v. Saturnina MENDOZA, Victor P. Mendoza, and Doe Insurance Co. No. 1, Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 26, 1978
- **Citations:** 573 F.2d 1075
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Chambers
- **Judges:** Chambers, Ely, Choy
- **Cited by:** 308 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464704

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that it is “well settled in the usual litigation context that courts have inherent power summarily to enforce a settlement agreement” where the parties are not a protected class of litigants such as minors or class-action plaintiffs
- holding that 20 district court erred in denying settlement based solely on the proportion of the settlement going to 21 plaintiffs' counsel
- holding that district court erred in denying settlement based solely on the 25 proportion of the settlement going to plaintiffs' counsel
- holding that district court erred in denying settlement based solely on the 10 proportion of the settlement going to plaintiffs' counsel
- holding that district court erred in denying settlement based solely on the 3 proportion of the settlement going to plaintiffs' counsel

## Opinion text

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
Nothing in the law of Guam or California requires us to allow the guardian ad litem of a minor to repudiate a settlement agreement prior to court approval under the Guam statute. I would not let him do so. The majority’s holding affords the minor no greater protection. Should the guardian ad *1081 litem discover that the settlement offer was improvidently accepted, he should have sufficient evidence to convince the reviewing court that the settlement was not in the minor’s best interests. And the majority’s holding may discourage litigants from settling claims involving minors since the guardian ad litem is now free to change his mind until the moment the court approves it. I would hold that once the guardian ad litem has agreed to a settlement it must be reviewed by the court to determine whether it is in the minor’s best interests or whether the guardian should be allowed to repudiate it.
ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
For the first time, in their Petition for Rehearing, the appellees urge the applicability of section 1544 of the Guam Civil Code. 1 That section permits an injured person who has settled his claim within fifteen days after the date of his injury to disavow the settlement agreement at any time within one year of the making of the speedy agreement. The appellees argue that the tentative settlement in this case is not one of the class for which section 1544 allows repudiation, 2 and therefore, by implication, the guardian ad litem did not have the power to repudiate.
We reject such a statutory construction. Section 1544 deals only with the type of settlement known as a “rush release” and in no way addresses the question with which we are concerned: When can a guardian ad litem, on behalf of a minor, repudiate a settlement? Section 1544, to be sure, would permit a minor or his guardian to disavow a “rush release,” but it does not expressly deny a minor the right to withdraw from other settlement agreements after the institution of suit and prior to judicial approval. To preserve the traditional protections afforded a minor by the state, we decline so to construe it. Thus, as applied to the rights of minors, section 1544 is nonexclusive. Our reading of section 1544 is consistent with and, in fact, stems from the core of our decision, i. e., as to a minor, a valid, enforceable settlement agreement cannot exist until the agreement bears the court’s imprimatur.
Of the judges constituting the panel originally concerned with the subject case (CHAMBERS, ELY, and CHOY), Judges CHOY and ELY vote to deny the Petition for Rehearing and to reject the suggestion for en banc rehearing. Judge CHAMBERS would grant panel rehearing, but all three *1082 judges concerned vote to reject the en banc suggestion.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for en banc rehearing, as well as of the addition to the Opinion, contained in this Order, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).
The Petition for Rehearing is denied, and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.
. Guam Civil Code § 1544 (1970) provides, in pertinent part:
Releases in personal injury. Any agreement entered into on or after the effective date of this Act by any person within fifteen (15) days after he incurs a personal injury, which is related to his right to be compensated for such injury, including but not limited to agreements relating to waivers of procedural or other rights, may be disavowed in writing by such injured person or, in the case of a minor, also by his parent or guardian, within one (1) year after the making of the agreement. No agreement disavowed may be introduced as evidence in any judicial or administrative proceeding. In order to be effective, any such disavowal shall be sent by registered mail to the person by whom it was obtained or on whose behalf it was obtained, or to the attorney of the defendant against whom action is brought for such personal injury, at the last known address of such person or attorney, and no disavowal shall be ineffective because unaccompanied by an offer to return any consideration accepted on account of the agreement. In lieu of making a disavowal by registered mail as provided herein, such disavowal may be made by a pleading in an appropriate action or proceeding provided that such pleading is filed within one (1) year after the making of the agreement disavowed.
. The accident occurred on January 2, 1973. The record does not indicate when the guardian made his informal agreeement. The agreement was presented to the Guam Superior Court for approval on October 31, 1974. In their Petition for Rehearing appellees concede that the tentative settlement is not one of the class of agreements eligible for repudiation under section 1544.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464704. Public record. Not legal advice.