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

Filing 45

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 44 Ex Parte MOTION to Confirm Minor's Compromise filed by James Jimenez, L.J., M.J., Hope Scott. Objections to R&R due by 12/1/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 11/17/2022.(sjt)

Case 3:21-cv-00027-JM-AGS Document 45 Filed 11/17/22 PageID.915 Page 1 of 4

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
5

James JIMENEZ, Hope Scott, Cheri Scott
as guardian ad litem for minors L.J and
M.J.;
Plaintiffs,

6

v.

7

SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC,
a California Limited Liability Company;
LINCOLN MILITARY PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT LP, a Delaware Limited
Partnership; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
Defendants.

4

8
9
10
11

Case No.: 21-cv-0027-JM-AGS
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY
MINORS’ COMPROMISE
(ECF 44)

12

Plaintiffs, including the guardian ad litem for minors L.J. and M.J., seek an order

13

approving a proposed settlement of the minors’ claims. Because it is unclear whether the

14

settlement serves the minors’ best interests, the Court recommends that the motion to

15

approve the minors’ settlement be denied.

16

BACKGROUND

17

This suit arises from allegations that defendants, as landlords, failed to adequately

18

address general deterioration and mold build-up in plaintiffs’ military housing. (See

19

ECF 1-2, at 5–6.) As a result, plaintiffs sued under California law for various types of

20

negligence, nuisance, constructive eviction, breach of warranty, and rent abatement. (See

21

generally ECF 1-2, at 7 through ECF 1-3, at 19.) Plaintiffs claim that they suffered

22

“allergy”-like health reactions, with minor plaintiff L.J. also coping with “respiratory

23

illness,” “damage to left lung,” “seizures,” and “skin conditions,” and M.J. enduring “sinus

24

infection,” “wheezing,” and the removal of his tonsils. (ECF 1-2, at 6–7.)

25

The parties agreed to settle the suit for $100,000, of which L.J. and M.J. will each

26

receive $5,000. (See ECF 44, at 2.) Plaintiffs James Jimenez and Hope Scott—the minors’

27

parents—will receive the remainder. (Id.) Counsel has waived any fees against the minors’

28

recovery. (Id. at 3.) And all lien costs associated with the minors’ medical care will come
1
21-cv-0027-JM-AGS

Case 3:21-cv-00027-JM-AGS Document 45 Filed 11/17/22 PageID.916 Page 2 of 4

1

from the parents’ portion. (Id.) The parties propose to deposit the minors’ recovery into an

2

“interest-bearing, federally insured blocked account” “until the minor reaches 18 years of

3

age.” (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 must

9

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

10

in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minors’ specific

11

claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1182. “Most importantly, the district court

12

should evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the

13

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

14

counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id.

15

This Court’s Local Rules also contemplate the use of the California procedures to

16

approve minors’ compromises. See CivLR 17.1(b)(1) (“Money or property recovered by a

17

minor or incompetent California resident by settlement or judgment must be paid and

18

disbursed in accordance with California Probate Code Section 3600, et seq.”). Relevant to

19

this settlement, those sections authorize the court, if it is in the best interests of the child,

20

to order the settlement funds to be deposited “in an insured account in a financial institution

21

in this state . . . subject to withdrawal only upon the authorization of the court.” Cal. Prob.

22

Code 3611(b) & (e).

23

The undersigned is familiar with the facts of this case: this Court participated in a

24

global settlement conference for this and several related cases. (See ECF 29.) At first blush

25

plaintiffs appear to have a good case, although litigation is always uncertain. There is some

26

additional risk in this case, as it was subject to a motion to dismiss based on jurisdictional

27

grounds that may have foreclosed plaintiffs’ suit entirely. (See ECF 13.) Plaintiffs also

28

faced several costly medical battles to prove causation and damages, not to mention the
2
21-cv-0027-JM-AGS

Case 3:21-cv-00027-JM-AGS Document 45 Filed 11/17/22 PageID.917 Page 3 of 4

1

potential delay caused by additional years of litigation. The parents have also agreed to

2

cover any lien costs from their settlement amounts. These facts each weigh in favor of the

3

settlement being fair and in the minors’ best interests.

4

Similarly, the proposed attorney fees distribution—that is, plaintiffs’ attorneys

5

waiving all collection from the minors—weighs in favor of approving the request. See

6

Napier v. San Diego Cty., No. 315CV00581CABKSC, 2017 WL 5759803, at *3 (S.D. Cal.

7

Nov. 28, 2017) (“In California, courts are required to approve the attorneys’ fees to be paid

8

for representation of a minor.”). Finally, the procedure for disposition of the funds—

9

placing them in a blocked account until the minors reach the age of majority—is consistent

10

with the California Probate Code. See Cal. Prob. Code 3611(b); (ECF 56, at 3).

11

But unlike related cases with similar settlement amounts, the minors’ symptoms here

12

appear to be substantially more severe. Plaintiffs allege that L.J. has suffered lung damage.

13

Prior respiratory-illness cases in which similar minors’ settlements were deemed

14

reasonable involved mitigating or extenuating factors that are noticeably absent here. See

15

Smith v. AMETEK, Inc., No. 3:20-CV-2359-TWR-BLM, 2021 WL 4077580, *1, *6 (S.D.

16

Cal. Sept. 8, 2021) (recommending approving a $5,000 minor’s settlement when the minor

17

required “breathing treatments” and “inhalers” for injuries caused by “mold build-up,” but

18

the minor had since “fully recovered”); see also Caballero v. San Diego Fam. Hous., LLC,

19

No. 3:22-CV-0337-JM-AGS, 2022 WL 4117030, *1, *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2022)

20

(recommending approving settlement amounts of $8,000 to $21,000 for minors who

21

experienced “shortness of breath” and “respiratory illness” from “mold build-up” after

22

considering a mediator’s report that was “very detailed, thorough, and thoughtful”).

23

The crucial facts that may have reassured the Smith or Caballero courts about the

24

reasonableness of those minors’ settlements are not readily apparent here. Plaintiffs did not

25

provide any information on whether L.J. has recovered from the lung damage nor detailed

26

the seriousness of that damage. And while proving causation can be difficult for these

27

injuries, plaintiffs have not given the Court sufficient reason to believe that this is a

28

particular concern in the case of L.J. (lung damage) or M.J. (tonsils). Again, the settlement
3
21-cv-0027-JM-AGS

Case 3:21-cv-00027-JM-AGS Document 45 Filed 11/17/22 PageID.918 Page 4 of 4

1

must be “fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim,

2

and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. There is not enough

3

information for the Court to reach that conclusion.

4

In sum, if defendant’s conduct or omissions caused L.J. to suffer lasting lung damage

5

and for M.J. to undergo surgery to remove his tonsils, then a $5,000 settlement is not

6

reasonable compared to other minor plaintiffs in related cases. On the other hand, if it turns

7

out that the minor plaintiffs’ symptoms were not as serious as alleged or that showing

8

causation has been especially difficult, then the settlement amount may be reasonable.

9

Because the minor plaintiffs’ symptoms are alleged to be relatively serious, and plaintiffs

10

did not address any causation difficulties in its motion, the Court should deny the motion

11

to approve the minors’ settlements.

12

CONCLUSION

13

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not adequately shown that the proposed

14

settlement is in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court

15

recommends that:

16

1. The motion to approve the settlement (ECF 44) be DENIED.

17

2. The Court find that the compromise and settlement of the claims of the minors
is not fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs
without further briefing by Plaintiffs.

18
19
20
21
22
23

Any objections to this report and recommendation are due by December 1, 2022.
See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of
being served with it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Dated: November 17, 2022

24
25
26
27
28
4
21-cv-0027-JM-AGS