Dumas et al v. Sunview Properties et al

Filing 50

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 46 ) is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Compromise of Minor's Claims (Doc. 29 ) is granted. Pursuant to the stipulation of dismissal filed by the parties on 11/13/2014 (Doc. 30 ), this action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 3/5/2015. (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

13

OLAUDAH DUMAS; and T.S., a
minor, by and through his Guardian Ad
Litem, OLAUDAH DUMAS,

14

Plaintiffs,

12

15
16

CASE NO. 13cv1425 WQH
(JLB)
ORDER

vs.
SUNVIEW PROPERTIES, a business
of unknown form; and WILLIAM R.
TURPIN,

17

Defendants.

18 HAYES, Judge:
19

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

20 (ECF No. 46) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt,
21 recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Compromise of Minor’s Claims
22 (ECF No. 29) be granted.
23 I. Background
24

On June 18, 2013, Plaintiff Olaudah Dumas and Plaintiff T.S. Dumas, a minor,

25 by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Olaudah Dumas, commenced this action by
26 filing a Complaint in this Court against Defendants Sunview Properties and William R.
27 Turpin (“Defendants”). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants discriminated
28 against families with children in the operation of the apartments located at 4953 Trojan
-1-

13cv1425 WQH (JLB)

1 Avenue, San Diego, California (“the Trojan Apartments”). Id. at 1. The Complaint
2 alleges causes of action for: (1) violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§
3 3604(b), (c), and 3617; (2) violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing
4 Act (“FEHA”), California Government Code §§ 12955(a), (c), (d), and 12955.7; (3)
5 violations of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), California Civil
6 Code §51 et seq.; (4) unfair business practices in violation of California Business &
7 Professions Code § 17204; and (5) negligence.
8

On October 15, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement, indicating that the

9 parties had reached a settlement in this case. (ECF No. 26). On November 3, 2014,
10 Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minor’s Claims, requesting
11 approval of settlement of the claims of Plaintiff T.S., a minor, for $10,000. (ECF No.
12 29). On December 17, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the Supplemental Declaration of Olaudah
13 Dumas in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Compromise of Minor’s Claims.
14 (ECF No. 37). On December 22, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an amended supplement in
15 support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Compromise of Minor’s Claims. (ECF No.
16 40). On January 30, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued the
17 Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Motion of Plaintiffs to Approve
18 Compromise of Minor’s Claims be granted.
19

On February 2, 2015, the Court issued an order stating that “[a]ny objections to

20 the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiffs Motion to Approve
21 Compromise of Minors Claims be granted, shall be filed by Tuesday, February 17,
22 2015. (ECF No. 47). The docket reflects that no objections to the Report and
23 Recommendation have been filed.1
24
25

1

On February 17, 2015, Defendants filed a document titled “Defendants’
Clarification to the Report and Recommendation to Grant Motion of Plaintiffs to
26 Approve Minors’ Compromise.” (ECF No. 48). Defendants assert that “[a]
modification is not necessary to the Report and Recommendation and Defendants do
27 not object to or seek to modify the Report and Recommendation.” Id. at 3. Defendants
wish to state for the record that the sum of $35,750 cited in the Report and
28 Recommendation represents the settlement amount that covers Plaintiff T.S.’s damages,
attorneys’ fees, and costs, but does not cover the portion of the settlement payable to
-2-

13cv1425 WQH (JLB)

1 II. Review of the Report and Recommendation
2

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

3 of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28
4 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those
5 portions of the report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or
6 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”
7 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a
8 Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416
9 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th
10 Cir. 2003) (en banc).
11

After review of the Report and Recommendation and the submissions of the

12 parties, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the
13 settlement is in the best interest of all the parties and the amount of money Plaintiff T.S.
14 will receive is fair and reasonable.
15 III. Conclusion
16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

17 46) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Compromise of
18 Minor’s Claims (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED.
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the stipulation of dismissal filed

20 by the parties on November 13, 2014 (ECF No. 30), this action is DISMISSED with
21 prejudice.
22 DATED: March 5, 2015
23

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Olaudah Dumas.
-3-

13cv1425 WQH (JLB)