1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Amanda LOPEZ, Joshua Lopez, Robert Case No.: 3:20-cv-1915-JM-AGS Fisher as guardian ad litem for T.L, R.L., 4 REPORT AND and I.H.; RECOMMENDATION TO 5 Plaintiffs, APPROVE MINORS’ 6 v. COMPROMISE (ECF 76) 7 SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC; LPC Pendelton Quantico PM LP, Lincoln 8 Military Property Management LP; and 9 Does 1 through 50, Defendants. 10

11 Plaintiffs, including the Guardian Ad Litem for minors T.L., R.L., and I.H., seek an 12 order approving a proposed settlement of the minors’ claims. Because the settlement serves 13 the minors’ best interests, the Court recommends that the motion to approve the minors’ 14 settlement be granted. 15 BACKGROUND 16 This suit arises from allegations that defendants, as landlords, failed to adequately 17 address mold build-up in plaintiffs’ military housing. (See ECF 1-2, at 16-19.) As a result, 18 plaintiffs sued for various types of negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, constructive 19 eviction, and premises liability, all arising under California law. (See generally ECF 1-2, 20 at 19-45.) As a result of the failure to adequately clean the mold, plaintiffs claim they 21 underwent “allergy”-like health reactions, with minor plaintiff T.L. also coping with 22 “constipation,” “fatigue”, and “unsteadiness”; I.H. handling “bloody nose,” “headaches,” 23 and “hoarseness”; and R.L. suffering from “seizures, speech delay, low muscle tone,” and 24 “severe physical delay.” (Id. at 18-19.) 25 The parties agreed to settle the suit for $100,000, of which T.L. and I.H. will receive 26 $3,000, and R.L. will receive $5,000. (See ECF 76, at 2.) Amanda and Joshua Lopez, the 27 other plaintiffs and the minors’ parents, will receive the remainder. (Id.) Counsel has 28 1 waived any fees against the minors’ recovery. (Id. at 3.) And all lien costs associated with 2 the minors’ medical care will come from the parents’ portion. (Id.) The parties propose to 3 deposit the minors’ recovery into an “interest-bearing, federally insured block account” 4 “until the minor reaches 18 years of age.” (Id.) 5 DISCUSSION 6 District courts have “a special duty” to “safeguard the interests of litigants who are 7 minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren,

(9th Cir. 2011). In the settlement 8 context, that duty requires the court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the 9 settlement serves the best interests of the minor.”

(citations omitted). The Court must 10 limit the scope of its review to “whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff 11 in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minors’ specific 12 claim, and recovery in similar cases.”

. “Most importantly, the district court 13 should evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the 14 proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ 15 counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.”

16 This Court’s Local Rules also contemplate the use of the California procedures to 17 approve minors’ compromises. See CivLR 17.1(b)(1) (“Money or property recovered by a 18 minor or incompetent California resident by settlement or judgment must be paid and 19 disbursed in accordance with California Probate Code Section 3600, et seq.”). Relevant to 20 this settlement, those sections authorize the court, if it is in the best interests of the child, 21 to order the settlement funds to be deposited “in an insured account in a financial institution 22 in this state . . . subject to withdrawal only upon the authorization of the court.” Cal. Prob. 23 Code 3611(b) & (e). 24 The undersigned is familiar with the facts of this case: this Court held a motion 25 hearing affecting this and several related cases and participated in a global settlement 26 conference with that same group. (See, e.g., ECF 67 (global settlement conference); ECF 27 41 (motion hearing).) At first blush plaintiffs appear to have a good case, although litigation 28 is always uncertain. There is some additional risk in this case, as it was subject to a motion 1 to dismiss based on jurisdictional grounds that may have foreclosed plaintiffs’ suit entirely. 2 (See ECF 16.) Plaintiffs also faced several costly medical battles to prove causation and 3 damages, not to mention the potential delay caused by additional years of litigation. The 4 parents have also agreed to cover any lien costs from their settlement amounts. Finally, 5 plaintiffs have allocated a greater recovery to R.L., who faced the most serious symptoms. 6 These facts each weigh in favor of the settlement being fair and in the minors’ best interests. 7 Similarly, the proposed attorney’s fees distribution—that is, plaintiffs’ attorneys 8 waiving all collection from the minors—weighs in favor of approving the request. See 9 Napier v. San Diego Cty., No. 315CV00581CABKSC,

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 10 Nov. 28, 2017) (“In California, courts are required to approve the attorneys’ fees to be paid 11 for representation of a minor.”). Finally, the procedure for disposition of the funds— 12 placing them in a blocked account until the minors reach the age of majority—is consistent 13 with the California Probate Code. See Cal. Prob. Code 3611(b); (ECF 76, at 3). 14 The Court’s fairness determination is supported by other approved settlements in 15 similar cases. In another case settled against most of the same defendants arising out of 16 very similar mold allegations, the Court approved a net recovery of “$1,277.04” for a minor 17 out of a gross recovery of “$69,000.” Doe v. Lincoln Mil. Prop. Mgmt. LP, No. 18 320CV00224GPCAHG,

, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2020), adopted, 19 No. 3:20-cv-00224-GPC-AHG,

(S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2020). That 20 recovery was for a minor who, like the minors here, suffered “wet coughs, eye infections, 21 sinus infections, lethargy, and shortness of breath.” See id. at *1. And in another mold- 22 intrusion case, the Court approved the net settlement of a minor’s claim for “2,206.72” out 23 of $75,000. Smith v. AMETEK, Inc., No. 320-CV-2359-TWR-BLM,

, at 24 *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2021), adopted, No. 20-CV-2359 TWR (AGS),

25 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021). That minor also suffered from “wheezing, coughing, and allergic 26 reactions.”

In this case, the minors who were afflicted with similar symptoms are 27 recovering $3,000—more than the minors in those cases—and R.L. with more serious 28 symptoms is recovering the larger $5,000 sum. l CONCLUSION 2 The settlement here is in the best interests of the children and is in line with 3 || settlements in similar cases. The distribution method is also appropriate. Accordingly, the 4 || Court recommends that: 5 1. The motion to approve the settlement (ECF 76) be GRANTED. 6 2. The Court find that the compromise and settlement of the claims of the minors 7 TL. R.L., and 1H. be APPROVED as fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs. 8 3. The minors’ net recovery be placed in a blocked account until further Court 9 order or the minors reach the age of 18. (See ECF 76, at 2.) 10 Any objections to this report and recommendation are due by June 3, 2022. See 11 } }28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of being 12 served with it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 13 || Dated: May 20, 2022 14 A-—_ Hon. Andrew G. Schopler I5 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28