Briana Leakas v. Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 BRIANA LEAKAS, et al., Case No. 22-cv-01422-VKD

9 Plaintiffs, REDACTED 10 v. ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO 11 MONTEREY BAY MILITARY APPROVE MINOR'S COMPROMISE HOUSING, LLC, et al., 12 Re: Dkt. No. 100 Defendants.

13 14 Plaintiffs Briana Leakas and her minor son, D.L. (along with Theodore Leakas, Ms. 15 Leakas’s spouse and D.L.’s guardian ad litem), filed this action for personal injuries they claim 16 they sustained as a result of toxic mold contamination in the home they leased from defendants 17 while living on the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey from about June 2019 through May 18 2020. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint (the operative pleading) asserts ten state and common law 19 claims for relief: negligence (claim 1); nuisance (claim 2); negligent misrepresentation (claim 3); 20 negligent infliction of emotional distress (claim 4); breach of implied warranty of habitability 21 (claim 5); breach of implied covenant of quiet use and enjoyment (claim 6); gross negligence 22 (claim 7); premises liability (claim 8); constructive (wrongful) eviction (claim 9); and fraud- 23 concealment (claim 10). Dkt. No. 34. 24 On February 20, 2024, shortly before the jury trial was scheduled to begin, the parties 25 advised that they reached a settlement of the action. Dkt. No. 97. Plaintiffs now move for the 26 Court’s approval of the settlement of the claims brought on behalf of D.L., who is now five years 27 old. Dkt. No. 104. The settlement contemplates a total payment of , of which 1 will be allocated to D.L.1 Dkt. No. 104 at 4; see also Dkt. No. 104-1. No fees or costs will be 2 deducted from D.L.’s portion of the settlement. Dkt. No. 104 at 4; Dkt. No. 104-1, Ex. A. 3 Plaintiffs propose that D.L.’s settlement funds be delivered to Briana and Theodore Leakas, who 4 will deposit the funds into an account, subject to withdrawal only by D.L. when he reaches the age 5 of majority and upon authorization by this Court. See Dkt. No. 100-2; 104 at 4; Dkt. No. 104-1 6 ¶¶ 8, 9. 7 Defendants have not filed any opposition or otherwise responded to plaintiffs’ petition for 8 approval of the settlement with respect to D.L., and the time for doing so has passed. The matter 9 is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. The April 30, 2024 hearing is 10 vacated. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants plaintiffs’ 11 petition for approval of the settlement of D.L.’s claims. 12 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to 13 safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 14 (9th Cir. 2011). “In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this 15 special duty requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the 16 settlement serves the best interests of the minor.’” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 17 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)). In making that determination, courts must “focus[] on the net 18 recovery of the minor plaintiffs under the proposed agreement,” and “limit the scope of their 19 review to the question whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement 20 is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in 21 similar cases.” Id. at 1181-82. “Most importantly, the district court should evaluate the fairness 22 of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value 23 designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no 24 special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 1182. “In other words, in this context, the fairness determination 25 is an independent, not a comparative inquiry.” Id. Although the Ninth Circuit expressly limited 26 1 The Court has granted the parties’ request to maintain the unredacted petition and the unredacted 27 version of Mr. Webb’s supporting declaration under seal. See Dkt. No. 105 The specific 1 its holding in Robidoux to cases involving the settlement of a minor’s federal claims, see id. at 2 1179 n.2, courts in this district have applied the Robidoux standard in cases involving the 3 settlement of both federal and state claims. See J.R. by and through Ringer v. Lakeport Unified 4 Sch. Dist., No. C18-06211 WHA, 2019 WL 6219034, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019) (citing 5 cases). California law, which governs the state law claims in this action, also requires that a 6 settlement for a minor be approved by the court. See Cal. Prob. Code § 3600, et seq. 7 This order finds that the settlement of D.L.’s claims is fair and reasonable, in light of the 8 facts of this case, and the range of recovery found reasonable in similar cases.2 Although plaintiffs 9 contend that D.L. experienced “some symptoms that may have been caused or exacerbated by” the 10 condition of the subject property, they also note that his symptoms were transitory, and that he has 11 recovered completely, with no permanent injuries and no need for ongoing medical attention. See 12 Dkt. No. 104-1 ¶ 5 & Ex. A at ECF 6, 16. With respect to the proposed method of disbursement, 13 the proposed procedure for disposition of the funds—delivering them to Mr. Leakas to be 14 deposited into an account, with the funds to be withdrawn only by D.L. upon reaching the age of 15 majority and upon authorization from the Court—comports with the California Probate Code, as 16 the record demonstrates that D.L.’s estate is less than $5,000. See Cal. Prob. Code §§ 2456, 3401, 17 3402, 3602. 18 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ petition to approve the settlement of D.L.’s claims is granted. The 19 sum of shall be paid to Theodore Leakas, to be deposited into an account in trust for D.L., 20 with the funds to be withdrawn only by D.L. upon reaching the age of majority and upon 21 authorization from the Court. 22 By April 24, 2024, the parties shall file a joint status report stating when they anticipate 23 24 2 See, e.g., Beck v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing, LLC, No. 20-cv-0579-LAB WVG, 2022 25 WL 18460770 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2022), report and recommendation adopted by 2023 WL 411351 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2023); Whale v. Lincoln Military Prop. Mgmt. LP, No. 22-cv-00160- 26 CAB-JLB, 2022 WL 1746613 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2022), report and recommendation adopted by 2022 WL 3137933 (S.D. Cal. June 6, 2022); Smith v. AMETEK, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-2359-TWR- 27 BLM, 2021 WL 4077580 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2021), report and recommendation adopted by Smith 1 filing a stipulation for dismissal. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: April 17, 2024 4 5 nragiita. win K, Marche: Virginia K. DeMarchi 6 United States Magistrate Judge 4 8 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28