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)

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