Lass et al v. Brindisi at Aviara Premiere Collection Homeowners Association et al
Filing
16
ORDER: The Petition to Confirm Minors' Compromise is Granted.(ECF No. 13 ). Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 05/10/2018. (ajs)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CHRISTIAN LASS, an
Individual; AMY LASS, an
Individual; B.L., a minor by and
through his guardian, Amy Lass;
C.L., a minor by and through his
general guardian, Amy Lass;
NATE SPEER, an Individual;
MELISSA SPEER, an Individual;
R.S., a minor by and through her
general guardian, Melissa Speer;
P.S., a minor by and through her
general guardian, Melissa Speer;
H.S., a minor by and through her
general guardian, Melissa Speer;
BRIAN BURKE, an Individual;
TRISHA BURKE, an Individual;
J.B., a minor by and through her
general guardian, Trisha Burke;
B.B., a minor by and through her
general guardian, Trisha Burke,
27
28
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
25
26
Case No.: 17cv2428-WQH-BGS
v.
BRINDISI AT AVIARA
PREMIER COLLECTION
HOMEOWNERS
1
17cv2428-WQH-BGS
1
2
3
4
ASSOCIATION, A Business Form
Unknown; THE PRESCOTT
COMPANIES, a California
Corporation doing business as
Associa Prescott and DOES 1
THRU 10, INCLUSIVE,
5
Defendants.
6
7
HAYES, Judge:
The matter before the Court is the Petition to Confirm Minors’ Compromises filed
8
9
10
by Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 13).
I.
BACKGROUND
11
On December 4, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants alleging the
12
following causes of action: (1) violation of the Fair Housing Act, (2) violation the
13
California Fair Employment and Housing Act, (3) negligence, (4) unfair business practices,
14
and (5) violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs are
15
parents and their minor children who lived at a community called Brindisi at Aviara
16
(“Brindisi”), located in Carlsbad, California. Defendants manage and supervise the rental
17
and ownership of units at Brindisi. The Complaint alleges that Defendants discriminated
18
against families with children in the operation of Brindisi by unfairly restricting the minor
19
children from playing in common areas in the community. (ECF No. 1).
20
On January 26, 2018, Defendants filed an Answer. (ECF No. 6).
21
On April 19, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte Petition for Confirm Minors’
22
Compromises. (ECF No. 13). On April 24, 2018, the Court entered an Order requiring
23
that any response to the Petition must be filed on or before May 1, 2018. (ECF No. 15).
24
The record reflects that no response to the Petition has been filed.
25
II.
DISCUSSION
26
Plaintiffs assert that the parties have entered into a settlement with respect to the
27
entire case and seek an order confirming the claims of the minor Plaintiffs, B.L., C.L., R.S.,
28
2
17cv2428-WQH-BGS
1
P.S., H.S., J.B., and B.B. General Guardian Amy Lass requests that B.L. and C.L. each
2
receive $3,000. General Guardians Melissa Speer and Trish Burke request that R.S., P.S.,
3
H.S., J.B. and B.B. each receive $5,000. Plaintiffs contend that the settlement is reasonable
4
in light of the facts of this case and in light of other settlements under similar circumstances.
5
No objections have been filed to the Petition.
6
“District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
7
17(c), “to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638
8
F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) provides that a
9
district court “must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to
10
protect a minor . . . who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). “In the
11
context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty
12
requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement
13
serves the best interests of the minor.’” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075,
14
1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); see also Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir.
15
1983) (“Thus, a court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or
16
settlement of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected . . .
17
even if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or
18
guardian ad litem”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 17.1, “[no] action by or on behalf of a
19
minor . . . will be settled, compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated
20
without court order or judgment.” CivLR 17.1.
21
District courts should “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net
22
amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable in light
23
of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.”
24
Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82. “[T]he district court should evaluate the fairness of each
25
minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value
26
designated for the adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district
27
court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 1182. “So long as the net recovery to each
28
3
17cv2428-WQH-BGS
1
minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery in similar
2
cases, the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the parties.” Id.
3
In this case, the proposed minors’ compromise will result in each minor plaintiff
4
receiving either $3,000 or $5,000 in a trust account. No party has filed any objections and
5
courts have approved settlements allowing for similar recovery by minor plaintiffs under
6
similar circumstances. After considering the facts of this case, the minors’ specific claims,
7
and the recovery in similar cases, the Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and
8
in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs. The unopposed Petition to Confirm Minors’
9
Compromise is granted.
10
11
12
13
III.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition to Confirm Minors’ Compromise is
GRANTED. (ECF No. 13). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
1. The minor plaintiffs shall receive the following by way of settlement:
14
$3,000
B.L.
15
$3,000
C.L.
16
$5,000
J.B.
17
$5,000
B.B.
18
$5,000
R.S.
19
$5,000
P.S.
20
$5,000
H.S.
21
22
2.
Within 72 hours of receipt of a check payable to the order of the General
23
Guardian for each minor plaintiff, such General Guardian shall deposit the checks for the
24
minor children in blocked accounts at a federally insured bank or credit union.
25
26
27
28
3.
Each General Guardian 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
accounts without a written order under this case name and number, signed by a judge, and
4
17cv2428-WQH-BGS
1
bearing the seal of this court, until the respective minors attain the age of 18 years. When
2
the respective minor attains the age of 18 years, the depository, without further order of
3
this court, is authorized and directed to pay by check or draft directly to the former minor,
4
upon proper demand, all moneys including interest deposited under this order. The money
5
on deposit is not subject to escheat. The blocked accounts in this matter are to be opened
6
solely for the benefit of minor plaintiffs in this case and such funds placed, therein, cannot
7
be accessed by anybody other than the respective minor plaintiffs upon reaching the age of
8
majority. The parents/guardian ad litem shall have no right to access any of the funds in
9
such blocked account for any reason.
10
5.
General Guardians Amy Lass, Trisha Burke, and Melissa Speer are each
11
authorized and directed to execute any and all documents reasonably necessary to carry out
12
the terms of the settlement.
13
14
6.
Bond is waived.
Dated: May 10, 2018
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
17cv2428-WQH-BGS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?