ORDER

WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Appointment of Guardians Ad Litem, Pro Ami Hearing and Settlement Approval (doc. 55), which was filed under seal. The Motion indicates that plaintiff, Crystal Dykes, in her capacity as Executrix of the Estate of Ruby Hutcheson, and defendants ProCare, LLC; Eli Lilly & Company; Triad Group, Inc.; and H&P Industries, Inc. have agreed to settle all remaining claims in this wrongful death action. On that basis, Dykes requests appointment of guardians ad litem for certain minor distributees of the settlement proceeds and an evidentiary hearing at which the Court can evaluate whether the proposed settlement is in the minor distributees' best interest. Defendants do not oppose the requested relief.

As an initial matter, plaintiff is correct that under Alabama law, damages recovered in a wrongful death action "are not subject to the payment of the debts or liabilities of the testator or intestate, but must be distributed according to the statute of distributions." Ala. Code § 6-5-410(c). Plaintiff represents that three of the four distributees of the contemplated wrongful death settlement proceeds in this case are minors, including T.M.H., the decedent's legally adopted son; K.N.H., the decedent's granddaughter; and N.J.H., the decedent's grandson.1 Apparently, the only distributees of the wrongful death damages in this case are Dykes and the three minors.

It is well established under Alabama law that settlement of a minor's claim implicates special procedures to verify that any such settlement is in the minor's best interests. See Large v. Hayes by and through Nesbitt, 534 So.2d 1101, 1105 (Ala. 1988) ("Before such a settlement can be approved, there must be a hearing, with an extensive examination of the facts, to determine whether the settlement is in the best interest of the minor."). Simply put, "[u]nder Alabama law, a hearing to determine the fairness of a settlement must be held in order for that settlement to be binding on a minor party, even where the minor is represented by a next friend or other guardian." Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1265 (11th Cir. 2001).2 Because this Court is sitting in diversity, it applies state substantive law pursuant to the Erie doctrine. The fairness hearing requirement is plainly substantive. See Burke, 252 F.3d at 1266 ("we hold that Alabama law requiring a fairness hearing in order to bind a minor to a settlement agreement is a matter of state substantive law"). For that reason, the Court will grant plaintiff's request that it hold a hearing to evaluate the fairness of the proposed settlement for the minors.3

At that hearing, the minors will require representation of counsel. "It is well established that the appointment of a guardian ad litem is a procedural question governed by Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Burke, 252 F.3d at 1264 (citation and internal marks omitted). That rule, in turn, provides that "[t]he court must appoint a guardian ad litem — or issue another appropriate order — to protect a minor . . . who is unrepresented in an action." Rule 17(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.4 Under the circumstances, the Court agrees with plaintiff that appointment of guardians ad litem is warranted.

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered as follows:

DONE and ORDERED.