Carroll et al v. Hubka Sparhawk et al

Filing 25

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION to Approve Minors' Compromise (ECF No. 23 ]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 1/31/2019.(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Michael CARROLL, et al.,

Case No.: 17-cv-2020-CAB-AGS
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO APPROVE MINORS’
COMPROMISE (ECF No. 23)

Cheri L. HUBKA SPARHAWK, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

Michael Carroll, plaintiff and guardian ad litem for minor plaintiffs E.C. and K.C.,

18

seeks an order approving a proposed settlement of the minors’ claims against all

19

defendants. Because the settlement serves the minors’ best interests, the Court recommends

20

that the motion be granted.

21

BACKGROUND

22

This suit arises from allegations that defendants, the owners of a residential

23

apartment, discriminated against plaintiffs under the Fair Housing Act and related state

24

law. Plaintiffs represent that neither minor was physically harmed. (ECF No. 23-1, at 2.)

25

Plaintiffs and defendants reached a settlement on their own. The settlement

26

agreement was provided to the Court, along with the total settlement amount, the amounts

27

paid to the non-minor plaintiffs, and the amount paid to plaintiffs’ attorney. The total

28

settlement amount is $25,000, and each minor will receive $4,295. (Id. at 2-4.) Carroll will
1
17-cv-2020-CAB-AGS

1

hold the minors’ funds in trust and deposit such funds in an insured 529 Plan investment

2

account. (Id. at 3.) The funds will remain in the 529 Plan account until each minor reaches

3

the age of majority. (Id.)

4

DISCUSSION

5

District courts have “a special duty” to “safeguard the interests of litigants who are

6

minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). In the settlement

7

context, that duty requires the court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the

8

settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. (citations omitted). The Court is

9

required to limit the scope of its review to “whether the net amount distributed to each

10

minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the

11

minors’ specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1182. “Most importantly, the

12

district court should evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without

13

regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or

14

plaintiffs’ counsel–whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id.

15

Having reviewed the complaint and been privy to the parties’ briefing and

16

discussions at the Early Neutral Evaluation, the Court is intimately familiar with this case’s

17

facts and legal issues. With that experience in mind, the Court recognizes that litigation is

18

always uncertain and concludes that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the

19

minors’ best interests.

20

Moreover, the minors’ recovery in this case is reasonable in light of those approved

21

in similar cases. See, e.g., Milton v. Regency Park Apartments, No. 2:13-cv-01284-KJM-

22

CKD, 2015 WL 546045, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2015) (approving a housing discrimination

23

settlement in which each minor received $10,000 and collecting similar cases with minors

24

all receiving less than $5,000 per minor); Guerra v. Madera Mgmt. Co., No. 1:11-CV-

25

01488-LJO, 2012 WL 4833804, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012) (approving a housing

26

discrimination settlement in which each minor received $2,500); Bor v. PPC WSSC LLC,

27

No. 11-cv-03430-LHK, 2012 WL 1438779, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012) (approving

28

a housing discrimination settlement for three minors for $10,000 in aggregate).
2
17-cv-2020-CAB-AGS

1

Accordingly, the Court recommends:

2

1. The motion to approve the settlement be granted.

3

2. The compromise and settlement of the claims of the minors E.C. and K.C. be

4

approved as fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs.

5
6

Any objections to this report and recommendation are due by February 14, 2019.

7

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of

8

being served with it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

9
10

Dated: January 31, 2019

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-cv-2020-CAB-AGS