Faustino et al v. Central SDHC FHA LLC et al

Filing 66

ORDER granting 64 Motion for Order to Confirm Minors' Compromises. The Minor Plaintiffs shall receive the following: a) $3,000 to G.H, b) $3,000 to W.F, c) $3,000 to A.H., and d) $3,000 to A.H. Court terminates as moot 34 In Limine Motion 1 through 4 to Exclude Evidence at Trial, 44 Motion to Exclude Evidence that Central SDHC FHA LLC is a dba of San Diego Housing Commission, 44 Motion to Exclude Non-Party Witnesses from Courtroom, 44 Motion to Exclude Testi mony of Plaintiff minors, 44 Motion to Excude Evidence not Produced in Discovery or Disclosed per FRCP 26, 44 Motion to Exclude Any Evidence Offered for Plaintiff that Parking Lot at Apartment Complex is Safe for Residents to Play, 44 Moti on to Exclude Non-Party Witnessesto Exclude Testimony. The Bond is waived. Plaintiff/Guardian Faustino is authorized and directed to execute any and all documents reasonable necessary to carry out the terms of the settlement. Pursuant to the parties' Notice of Settlement 63 , the parties are directed to file a stipulation of dismissal of the case as soon as practicable. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 3/27/2018. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ERIN FAUSTINO, et al.,

11

Case No. 16-cv-2326-BAS-AGS
Plaintiffs,

12

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR CONFIRMATION OF
COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT

v.

13

CENTRAL SDHC FHA LLC,

14

[ECF No. 64]

Defendant.

15
16
17

Pending before the Court is an unopposed ex parte motion to confirm the

18

settlement entered into on behalf of the four minor plaintiffs in this action, G.H.,

19

W.F., A.H. and A.H (the “Minor Plaintiffs”). (ECF No. 64.) The Minor Plaintiffs

20

are represented by Plaintiff Erin Faustino, as their Guardian. Because the settlement

21

involves minor plaintiffs, Plaintiffs request that the Court approve the settlement as

22

to these Plaintiffs. For the reasons herein, the Court approves the settlement.

23

I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

24

The Minor Plaintiffs, along with Plaintiff Faustino, asserted claims against

25

Defendant based on the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), the California Fair Employment

26

and Housing Act (“FEHA”), negligence, and the California Unfair Competition Law,

27

CAL. BUS. PROF. CODE §17200, et seq. (ECF No. 1.)

28

Defendant enforced rules at its apartment complex which unfairly targeted children
–1–

Plaintiffs alleged that

16cv2326

1

and discriminated against families with children. They also alleged that Defendant’s

2

rules prevented children from playing in the common areas. Pursuant to stipulation

3

by Plaintiffs, the state law claims were dismissed from the case with only the FHA

4

claims remaining and set for trial. (ECF Nos. 29; 41.) After the Court’s denial of

5

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the parties entered into a confidential

6

full settlement of the case. (ECF No. 63.) Pursuant to the proposed settlement, each

7

Minor Plaintiff will receive $3,000 for his or her compromise. (ECF No. 64 at 3.)

8

II.

ANALYSIS

9

District courts have a special duty derived from Federal Rule of Civil

10

Procedure 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors. Rule 17(c)

11

provides, in relevant part, that a district court “must appoint a guardian ad litem—or

12

issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is

13

unrepresented in an action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 17(c). In the context of proposed

14

settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district

15

court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best

16

interests of the minor.” Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978);

17

see also Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[A] court

18

must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a

19

minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor's interests are protected, even if the

20

settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the minor's parent or guardian ad

21

litem”). The scope of a district court’s review concerns “whether the net amount

22

distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of

23

the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases . . .

24

without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-

25

plaintiffs or plaintiff’s counsel . . .” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1182

26

(9th Cir. 2011).

27

Plaintiff/Guardian Faustino believes that the settlement is reasonable. (Id.;

28

ECF No. 64-1 ¶5.) Having considered the settlement amounts approved in similar
–2–

16cv2326

1

cases and the facts in this case, the Court agrees that the settlement is reasonable and

2

fair to the Minor Plaintiffs. For example, in another case in this District, the court

3

approved a settlement of FHA, FEHA, negligence and Unruh Act claims with a

4

settlement amount of $750 for each minor plaintiff based on alleged discriminatory

5

rules at a timeshare resort by the defendants. See Angstman v. Carlsbad, No. 11cv62

6

L(WMc), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156962 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011). Another case

7

to which Plaintiffs have directed the Court resulted in approval of a settlement with

8

$2,500 being provided to minor children for settlement of claims that the children

9

were prohibited from using common areas at an apartment complex. See Maria

10

Gonzalez et al. v. Diversified Real Property Management, No. 09-cv-00718-PA-

11

RNB, 2010 WL 10105756 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 29, 2010). The Court has located an

12

additional case in which minor plaintiffs received settlement amounts of $3,500

13

based on similar allegations. See Guerra v. Madera Mgmt. Co., No. 11-cv-1488-

14

LJO-BAM, 2012 WL 4091994 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012). The proposed settlement

15

amount for each Minor Plaintiff here is well within the range of settlement amounts

16

approved for similar claims in factually similar cases. Accordingly, the Court

17

approves the settlement.

18

III.

19
20
21

CONCLUSION & ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:
1.

The motion to approve the minors’ compromises is GRANTED. (ECF

No. 64.) The Minor Plaintiffs shall receive the following:

22

a.

$3,000 to G.H.

23

b.

$3,000 to W.F.

24

c.

$3,000 to A.H.

25

d.

$3,000 to A.H.

26

2.

Within 72 hours of receipt of check payable to the order of Erin

27

Faustino, as General Guardian for the Minor Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Faustino shall

28

deposit the check for the minor children into a blocked account a federally insured
–3–

16cv2326

1

bank or credit union. The blocked account in this matter is to be opened solely for

2

the benefit of the Minor Plaintiffs in this case and such funds placed therein cannot

3

be accessed by anybody other than the respective Minor Plaintiffs as herein

4

discussed. Plaintiff/Guardian Faustino shall have no right to access any of the funds

5

in such blocked account for any reason.

6
7
8

3.

Plaintiff/Guardian Faustino must deliver to each depository at the time

of deposit a copy of this order.
4.

No withdrawals of principal or interest may be made from the blocked

9

accounts without a written order under this case name and number, signed by a

10

judge, and bearing the seal of this court, until the respective minors attain the age of

11

18 years. When the respective minor attains the age of 18 years, the depository,

12

without further order of this court, is authorized and directed to pay by check or draft

13

directly to the former minor, upon proper demand, all moneys including interest

14

deposited under this order. The money on deposit is not subject to escheat.

15
16

5.

Plaintiff/Guardian Faustino is authorized and directed to execute any

and all documents reasonably necessary to carry out the terms of the settlement.

17

6.

Bond is waived.

18

7.

In light of the settlement of this case, the Court TERMINATES AS

19
20
21
22

MOOT the parties’ pending motions in limine. (ECF Nos. 34 and 44.)
8.

Pursuant to the parties’ notice of settlement (ECF No. 63), the parties

are directed to file a stipulation for dismissal of the case as soon as practicable.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

DATED: March 27, 2018

25
26
27
28
–4–

16cv2326