Smith v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CODY SMITH; MICHELLE SMITH; Case No.: 20-CV-2359 TWR (AGS) C.S., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, BARBARA SPRINGER; and ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT A.S., a minor, by and through his guardian & RECOMMENDATION, AND ad litem, BARBARA SPRINGER, (2) APPROVING MINORS’

COMPROMISE

Plaintiffs, v. (ECF Nos. 29, 32)

CAMP PENDLETON & QUANTICO

HOUSING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; LPC PENDLETON

QUANTICO PM LP, a Delaware limited partnership; LINCOLN MILITARY

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LP, a

Delaware limited partnership; and DOES through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Petition for Minors’ Compromise (“Pet.,” ECF No. 29), which is unopposed. (See ECF No. 30.) The Honorable Andrew G. Schopler has issued a Report and Recommendation to Approve Minors’ Compromise (“R&R,” ECF No. 32). Having carefully reviewed Plaintiffs’ arguments and exhibits, Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R, and the relevant law, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety and APPROVES the Petition.

BACKGROUND

Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and procedural history underlying the instant Petition. (See R&R at 1–2.) This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

LEGAL STANDARD

When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 12 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). ANALYSIS

As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no objections to Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R. (See R&R at 5 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than September 22, 2021).) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well- reasoned, and contains no clear error and that the compromise and settlement of the claims of the minors C.S. and A.S. is fair and reasonable and in their best interests. The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R in its entirety and APPROVES Plaintiffs’ Petition.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R (ECF No. 32) and APPROVES Plaintiffs’ Petition (ECF No. 29). Accordingly, the minors’ net recovery—$3,669.50 for C.S. and $2,206.72 for ASS—SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED to Plaintiffs Cody and Michelle Smith to be held until the minors reach the age of majority.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2021 | Odd (2 re

Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Court