Vincent et al v. San Diego Family Housing, LLC et al

Filing 61

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. No. 59 ). Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 11/17/2022.(jms)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 ERIN VINCENT; JOSEPH VINCENT; and DAVID BELL as guardian ad litem for C.H., W.V., and Z.V., Plaintiffs, 14 15 v. 16 SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC; LINCOLN MILITARY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LP; and Does 1 through 50, 17 18 19 Case No.: 20-cv-1794-LAB-AGS ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Dkt. 59] Defendants. 20 This action arises from allegations that Defendant-landlords failed to 21 adequately address the buildup of mold in Plaintiffs’ military housing. (Dkt. 1-2 at 22 12–15). Plaintiffs allege they experienced allergy and flu-like symptoms, 23 headaches, and skin rashes. (Id.). They further allege minor C.H. experienced a 24 “respiratory infection”; minor W.V. experienced a “bloody nose”; and minor Z.V. 25 experienced “itchy” and “red” skin. (Id. at 14–15). The parties agreed to settle the 26 suit for $100,000. (Dkt. 56 at 2). As part of the settlement, each minor plaintiff will 27 receive $5,000, which will be deposited into an “interest-bearing, federally insured 28 block account” “until the minor reaches 18 years of age.” (Id.). 1 20-cv-1794-LAB-AGS 1 David Bell, guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiffs, filed an ex parte motion 2 to approve minors’ compromise. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge 3 Andrew Schopler for a report and recommendation (“R&R”). Judge Schopler 4 recommends the Court grant the motion, approve the settlement, and order the 5 minors’ net recovery be placed in a blocked account as detailed in the motion. 6 (Dkt. 59 at 4). No objection was filed prior to the October 17, 2022 deadline. For 7 the reasons below, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL Judge Schopler’s R&R. 8 A district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge’s R&R on 9 non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “A judge of the court may accept, 10 reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 11 the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The “statute makes it clear that the 12 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 13 de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 14 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). 15 The Court has reviewed the R&R and ADOPTS it in full. (Dkt. 59). For the 16 reasons set forth in the R&R, the motion to confirm minors’ compromise is 17 GRANTED, (Dkt. 56), and the compromise and settlement of the claims of the 18 minors C.H., W.V., and Z.V. is APPROVED as fair and reasonable and in the best 19 interests of the minor plaintiffs. The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the minors’ 20 net recovery be placed in a blocked account until further Court order or the minors 21 reach the age of 18. (See Dkt. 56 at 3–4). 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 17, 2022 Hon. Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge 26 27 28 2 20-cv-1794-LAB-AGS

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?