ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON REQUEST FOR AN ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT OF EACH MINOR'S CLAIMS

GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.

The minor Plaintiffs, through their guardian ad litem and mother Vivica Gonzalez, seek approval of a compromise settling their claims against the Defendants.1 Gonzales was appointed as each minor's guardian ad litem in the California state court.

However, a supplemental filing is ordered on the following issues.

The movants shall address the applicability of Local Rule 202(b)(1), which states in relevant part: "In actions in which the minor... is represented by an appointed representative pursuant to appropriate state law, excepting only those actions in which the United States courts have exclusive jurisdiction, the settlement or compromise shall first be approved by the state court having jurisdiction over the personal representative."

The movants shall address all components of Local Rule 202(c), which states: "When the minor. . . is represented by an attorney, it shall be disclosed to the Court by whom and the terms under which the attorney was employed; whether the attorney become involved in the application at the instance of the party against whom the causes of action are asserted, directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands in any relationship to that party; and, whether the attorney has received or expects to receive any compensation, from whom, and the amount."

Since the movants indicate that approval of the proposed settlement resolves this federal lawsuit, the issue is raised sua sponte whether all issues involving the administration of each trust under the California Probate Code should be remanded to the state court. See generally United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) ("Needless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law."); Guerrero v. Brentwood Union Sch. Dist., No. C 13-03873 LB, 2014 WL 1351208, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2014) ("Venue for on-going oversight of the special needs trusts established by this order shall be with the . . . County Superior Court, and the trustees of the trusts shall file an account and report with that Court in the manner and frequency called for by California Probate Code.").

Further, the movants have not included in their application information that Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) indicates should be addressed; specifically the application does not sufficiently address why the movants opine that the "net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, [each] minor's specific claim, and recovery in similar cases."

Lastly, the movants filing shall include the proposed order they desire the federal court to sign in response to their application.

The referenced supplemental briefing and proposed order shall be filed as soon as feasible, but no later than February 16, 2015; any response shall be filed no later than three court days after the supplemental brief is filed; a hearing on the matter is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on March 2, 2015.