1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Thomas OLMSTED, et al., Case No.: 19-cv-02011-JLB-BGS

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MINORS 13 v. COMPROMISE

14 SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC, [ECF NO. 25] et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 The matter before the Court is the Motion to Confirm Minors’ Compromise filed 18 by the guardian ad litem, Avery Olmsted, on behalf of minor Plaintiffs Porter Olmsted 19 and Cannon Olmsted (“minor Plaintiffs”). After reviewing the Petitions and all 20 supporting documents, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the 21 motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 This suit arises from the allegations that San Diego Family Housing LLC and 24 Lincoln Military Property Management LP breached their implied warranty of 25 habitability in the Plaintiffs’ rental property due to excessive water damage and moisture. 26 (ECF Nos. 25-2, 25-3.) Plaintiffs, Thomas Olmsted, Avery Olmsted, Cannon Olmsted 27 (through his guardian ad litem, Avery Olmsted), and Porter Olmsted (through his 28 1 guardian ad litem, Avery Olmsted), resided in military housing within The Village at the 2 Naval Training Center in San Diego. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants 3 expressly and impliedly warranted that the property would remain habitable, not interfere 4 with the Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment, and maintain the property in a manner to keep it 5 habitable. (ECF No. 1-2.) Specifically, the minor Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants 6 owed them a duty of care to avoid injuring the minor Plaintiffs or damaging their 7 personal property. (ECF No. 1-2.) The Plaintiffs also alleged that the property at issue 8 was defective in repair and in maintenance, with water intrusion, leaks, and other 9 moisture and condensation damage. (ECF No. 1-2.) The Plaintiffs claimed that the 10 Defendants knew about the defects and that the Defendants had failed to timely repair the 11 property, in a negligent and/or unreasonable fashion. (ECF No. 1-2.) 12 This action was initially filed in California Superior Court and was removed to this 13 Court on October 18, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) Minor Plaintiffs only alleged a claim of 14 negligence. (ECF No. 1-2.) No injuries were sustained by minor Plaintiffs, thus damages 15 were based on emotional distress only. (ECF No. 25-2, pg. 2; 25-3, pg. 2.) On November 16 25, 2019, the Court granted a Joint Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the action with 17 prejudice as to Defendants Lincoln/Clark San Diego, LLC, Lincoln Property Company 18 Southwest, Inc., LMH Manager, Inc., Lincoln Military Housing Holdings, LLC, and 19 LMH Military Property Management Tempco, LLC, (“Moving Defendants”). (ECF No. 20 14-15.) The remaining Defendants, San Diego Family Housing LLC and Lincoln Military 21 Property Management LP, filed their Joint Discovery Plan on November 26, 2019. (ECF 22 No. 16.) On December 9, 2019, an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference was held before 23 Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, where parties settled. (ECF No. 17.) On April 1st, 24 2020, guardian ad litem Avery Olmsted filed expedited petitions for approval of the 25 minors’ compromise of claims. (ECF Nos. 25-2, 25-3.) 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 Plaintiffs assert that the parties have settled with respect to the entire case and seek 28 an order confirming the claims of the minor Plaintiffs, Porter Olmsted and Cannon 1 Olmsted. (ECF No. 25-2, pg.3; 25-3, pg. 3.) The proposed gross settlement amount is 2 $500.00 for each minor. Attorneys fees to be paid from the settlement proceeds would be 3 25% of the gross amount, or $125.00 for each minor. The balance of the settlement 4 proceeds available to be paid to each claimant after deducting attorney’s fees and costs, 5 will be $375.00 for each minor. Plaintiffs contend that the settlement is reasonable in 6 light of the facts of this case and in light of other settlements under similar circumstances. 7 No objections have been filed to the Petition. 8 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 17(c), “to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 10

(9th Cir. 2011). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) provides that 11 a district court “must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to 12 protect a minor . . . who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). “In the 13 context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty 14 requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement 15 serves the best interests of the minor.’”

(quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza,

, 16 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); see also Salmeron v. United States,

(9th Cir. 17 1983) (“Thus, a court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise 18 or settlement of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected. . 19 . even if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or 20 guardian ad litem”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 17.1, “[no] action by or on behalf of a 21 minor . . . will be settled, compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated 22 without court order or judgment.” Civ. L. R. 17.1. 23 District courts should “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the 24 net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable in 25 light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” 26 Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82. “[T]he district court should evaluate the fairness of each 27 minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement 28 value designated for the adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the 1 district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 1182. “So long as the net recovery 2 to each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery 3 in similar cases, the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the 4 parties.” Id. 5 In this case, the proposed minors’ compromise will result in each minor plaintiff 6 receiving $375.00. No party has filed any objections and courts have approved 7 settlements allowing for similar recovery by minor plaintiffs under similar circumstances. 8 After considering the facts of this case, the minor Plaintiffs’ specific claims, and the 9 recovery in similar cases, the Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and in the 10 best interests of the minor Plaintiffs. The Motion to Confirm Minors’ Compromise is 11 granted. 12 III. CONCLUSION 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Confirm Minors’ Compromise is 14 GRANTED. (ECF No. 25). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: 15 1. The gross settlement amount in favor of each minor Plaintiff, Porter Olmsted 16 and Cannon Olmsted, is $500.00 and is to be paid to each claimant jointly 17 and severally by San Diego Family Housing LLC and Lincoln Military 18 Property Management LP. 19 2. From the settlement amount, fees and expenses will be paid by one or more 20 checks, payable to the order of the petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, or 21 directly to third parties entitled to receive payment identified in this order, 22 for attorneys fees in the amount of $125.00 for each claimant ($125.00 to 23 “Miller injury attorneys in trust for Cannon Olmsted” and $125.00 to “Miller 24 injury attorneys in trust for Porter Olmsted”) to be paid out of the settlement 25 proceeds. 26 3. The balance of the settlement proceeds, $375.00 for each claimant, will be 27 paid and delivered to a parent of the minor, upon the terms and under the 28 conditions specified in probate code sections 3401–3402, without bond. The 1 name and address of the parent whom the money or other property is to be 2 delivered to is: Avery Olmsted, Guardian Ad Litem and mother of claimants, 3 4608 E. Devonshire Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85018. 4 ||Dated: April 14, 2020 2 p / / on. Bernard G. Skomal 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28