Jones et al v. United States Department of the Navy et al

Filing 115

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. The Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims filed by all Plaintiffs is granted. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 7/11/2017. (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

THERESA JONES, individually and
as Executrix of the Estate of LANDON
JONES, deceased; A.J., a minor by and
through his Guardian ad Litem,
THERESA JONES; H.J., a minor by
and through his Guardian ad Litem,
THERESA JONES; CHRISTINA
GIBSON; individually and as
Executrix of the Estate of
JONATHAN GIBSON, deceased;
M.G., a minor by and through her
Guardian ad Litem, CHRISTINA
GIBSON; A.G., a minor by and
through his Guardian ad Litem,
CHRISTINA GIBSON,

CASE NO. 15cv2087-WQH-AGS
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE NAVY; GIBBS & COX,
INC., a New York Corporation; BATH
IRON WORKS CORPORATION, a
Maine Corporation,

21

Defendants.

22 HAYES, Judge:
23

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors’

24 Claims filed by all Plaintiffs under seal (ECF No. 111) and the Report and
25 Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler under
26 seal (1) recommending that the Court approve the Motion to Approve Compromise of
27 Minors’ Claims, and (2) recommending that the Court approve the compromise and
28 settlement of the claims of the Minor Plaintiffs A.J., H.J., M.G., and A.J. as fair and
-1-

15cv2087-WQH-AGS

1 reasonable and in the best interests of the Minor Plaintiffs (ECF No. 114).
2 I. Background
3

On September 18, 2015, Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for

4 the deaths of Lieutenant Commander Landon Jones and Chief Warrant Officer 3
5 Jonathan Gibson. (ECF No. 1). On November 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a first amended
6 complaint. (ECF No. 9). On May 27, 2016, the Court issued an order granting motions
7 to dismiss filed by Defendants The Prudential Insurance Company of America
8 (“Prudential”), the United States, the United States Department of the Navy, Huntington
9 Ingalls Incorporated (“Huntington”), Gibbs & Cox, Inc. (“Gibbs”), and Bath Iron
10 Works Corporation (“Bath”). (ECF No. 60). On July 19, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the
11 second amended complaint, which is the operative pleading in this matter. (ECF No.
12 73). On December 2, 2016, the Court issued an order denying motions to dismiss filed
13 by Defendants Iron Works and Gibbs. (ECF No. 96).
14

On April 25, 2017, Plaintiffs filed under seal the Motion to Approve Compromise

15 of Minors’ Claims filed by all Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 111). On May 9, 2017, Defendants
16 Bath and Gibbs filed a joint statement of non-opposition to the Motion to Approve
17 Compromise of Minors’ Claims. (ECF No. 113).
18

On June 5, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation,

19 recommending that the Court approve the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors’
20 Claims. (ECF No. 114). The Magistrate Judge ordered that any objections to the
21 recommendations be submitted by June 19, 2017. The docket reflects that no party has
22 filed an objection to the report and recommendation.
23 II. Review of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 114)
24

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

25 of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and
26 28 U.S.C. 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those
27 portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
28 objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
-2-

15cv2087-WQH-AGS

1 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
2 district court need not review de novo the portions of a report and recommendation to
3 which no party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005);
4 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
5

After a review of the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors’ Claims filed

6 by all Plaintiffs (ECF No. 111) and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 114),
7 the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s determination that the settlement between
8 Plaintiffs and Gibbs and Bath is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Minor
9 Plaintiffs A.J., H.J., M.G., and A.J. See Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181
10 (9th Cir. 2011).
11 III. Conclusion
12

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

13 114) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and (2) the Motion to Approve Compromise of
14 Minors’ Claims filed by all Plaintiffs (ECF No. 111) is GRANTED.
15 DATED: July 11, 2017
16
17

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

15cv2087-WQH-AGS