Saint Brown, et al. v. San Diego Family Housing, LLC, a limited liability company; Lincoln Military Property Management LP, a limited

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 SAINT BROWN, et al., Case No.: 23-CV-00567-JES-DDL

16 Plaintiffs, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 v. FOR ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF MINORS COMPROMISE AND FINDING THE a limited liability company; LINCOLN 19 PROPOSED SETTLEMENT FAIR MILITARY PROPERTY AND REASONABLE 20 MANAGEMENT LP, a limited

partnership, 21 [ECF No. 99] Defendants. 22

23 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Petition for Minors Compromise for Plaintiffs T. B., 24 L. B., C. B., and B. B. (ECF No. 99). This Report and Recommendation is submitted to 25 United States District Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and 26 Local Civil Rule 17.1 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 27 28 1 California. After considering the Petition and its supporting documents, and for the below 2 reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that District Judge Simmons GRANT the Petition. 4 This case was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Diego on 5 March 30, 2023. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs Saint Brown, Christine Brown, and Minor 6 Plaintiffs T. B., L. B., C. B., and B. B., by and through their guardian ad litem, Peggy Jo 7 Souder-Broome, brought this case following the allegedly harmful conditions caused by 8 mold in their leased housing within the boundaries of United States Marine Corps Air 9 Station Miramar. (ECF No. 1 at 31–56, Compl.; ECF No. 1-2 ¶ 7; ECF No. 72 at 7–8). 10 Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges, among other things, Minor Plaintiffs “consistently felt 11 cold and flu-like symptoms including coughs, colds, and sore throats.” (Compl. ¶ 16). 12 Minor Plaintiff T.B. allegedly “suffered a prolonged focal seizure for ten (10) minutes” 13 that neurologists connected to toxic mold. (Compl. ¶ 17, 36; ECF No. 99-1 at 2, 72). 14 Among them, the Minor Plaintiffs also allege experiencing nausea, dizziness, swollen face, 15 heart palpitations, an ear infection, and ear infection symptoms that were diagnosed as 16 fungal otitis externa. (Compl. ¶ 59). They allege these were caused by mold exposure. Id. 17 This case has been litigated extensively. On March 25, 2025, Judge Simmons 18 granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, leaving only 19 Plaintiffs’ negligence claim pending. (ECF Nos. 74, 78). In a settlement conference held 20 by Magistrate Judge David Leshner on October 8, 2025, the parties agreed to a settlement 21 and put its terms on the record. (ECF No. 97). The matter was referred to this Court for 22 review of the minor’s compromise. (ECF Nos. 99, 100). The Court has considered the 23 Petition for Minors Compromise, ECF No. 99, and for the reasons set forth below, 24 RECOMMENDS that the petition be GRANTED. 26 “District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 28 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Rule 17(c) requires district courts to appoint guardians ad 1 litem or issue appropriate orders to protect minors. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). In this context of 2 a proposed settlement in a case involving a minor, “this special duty requires a district court 3 to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of 4 the minor.’” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 5 1080 (9th Cir. 1978). 6 To conduct the inquiry, in Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit instructed district courts to 7 “limit the scope of their review to the question whether the net amount distributed to each 8 minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the 9 minor's specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” 638 F.3d at 1181–82. This should 10 be done “without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult 11 co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel[.]” Id. at 1182. The Ninth Circuit limited its holding in 12 Robidoux to the context of settlements of minors’ federal claims and did “not express a 13 view” on the approach for a federal court considering approval of a minor’s state law 14 claims. Id. at 1179 n.2. District courts sometimes apply the analysis in Robidoux and 15 sometimes the statutory scheme provided in the California Probate Code (which focuses 16 on reasonableness and the best interests of the minor) for approval of a minor's compromise 17 under state law. See Martinez v. Venegas, No. 23-CV-0130-CAB-BGS, 2023 WL 5811837, 18 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2023). The Court need not determine which standard applies to 19 this case because it would not change the Court’s conclusion. See id. (“[I]t is not necessary 20 for the Court to resolve the question of whether Robidoux or state rules apply. The outcome 21 is the same.”). 23 A. Proposed Settlement 24 The parties’ settlement constitutes a gross amount of $550,000, with a proposed split 25 of $255,000 to each of Plaintiffs Saint Brown and Christine Brown, and amounts of 26 $10,000 to each of the four Minor Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 99 at 3; ECF No. 99-1 ¶ 8). Under 27 the proposed settlement, Minor Plaintiffs would each receive net amounts of $7,500.00, 28 after the subtraction of $2,500.00 in attorney’s fees from each payment. (ECF No. 99 at 3; 1 99-1 at 10 (petition form for B.B.), 32 (petition form for C.B.), 54 (petition form for L.B.), 2 and 76 (petition form for T.B.)). The proposed procedure for disbursement and distribution 3 is for Minor Plaintiffs’ parents, Christine Brown and Saint Brown, to receive and 4 “immediately deposit the funds into separate savings accounts for each of the respective 5 minor Plaintiffs upon reaching the age of majority.” (ECF No. 99 at 5; see also ECF No. 6 99-2, Decl. of Saint Brown, ¶ 2). 7 Considering the facts of Minor Plaintiffs’ case, Minor Plaintiffs’ claims, recovery in 8 similar cases, and the best interests of Minor Plaintiffs, the Court finds the minors’ 9 settlement fair and reasonable. See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82; Cal. Prob. Code § 10 3611. Previous cases in this district have addressed similar settlements following similar 11 allegations. In Beck v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Hous., LLC, a case in which minor 12 plaintiffs alleged harms, including emotional distress, chronic headaches, allergy-type 13 symptoms, and insomnia, caused by mold in leased housing, the court found proposed 14 settlements of $5,000 ($3,750 after attorney’s fees) to each minor plaintiff fair and 15 reasonable. No. 20-CV-579-LAB-WVG, 2022 WL 18460770, at *1–2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 16 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 20-CV-579-LAB (WVG), 2023 WL 17 411351 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2023). In Tipton v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Hous., LLC, a 18 case where two minor plaintiffs alleged harms due to “black mold and other toxic 19 chemicals,” the court found proposed settlements of $5,000 for each minor, with net 20 recoveries of $3,750, fair and reasonable. No. 22-CV-00167-W-AHG, 2022 WL 5133481, 21 at *1–2, 5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2022). 22 In this case, “Plaintiffs have continued to see various doctors and medical providers, 23 and at this time there is no indication that any of the minor Plaintiffs have any ongoing 24 symptoms that would require additional future medical care related to the condition of the 25 Leased Property.” (ECF 99-1 at 2). Still, Minor Plaintiffs allege suffering serious medical 26 27 28 1 issues, including Plaintiff T.B.’s alleged seizure. Accordingly, the settlement amounts for 2 Minor Plaintiffs here, which are higher than those approved in Beck and Tipton, appear fair 3 and reasonable under the circumstances. 4 B. Attorney’s Fees 5 “[F]ees in minors cases have historically been limited to 25% of the gross recovery.” 6 Napier by & through Quiroz v. San Diego Cnty., No. 15-CV-00581-CAB-KSC, 2017 WL 7 5759803, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017). When evaluating whether the attorney’s fee is 8 reasonable, courts consider factors that include (1) the amount of the fee in proportion to 9 the value of the services performed, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved 10 and skills required, (3) the amount involved and the results obtained, and (4) the experience 11 and ability of the attorney. Estate of Serna v. County of San Diego, No. 20-CV-2096-BAS- 12 DDL, 2024 WL 4152362, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2024). This case has been litigated for 13 multiple years, past the summary judgment stage, and the Court finds that the proposed 14 attorney’s fees of 25% are appropriate. 15 C. Interest-Bearing Accounts 16 Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration states that under the proposal Minor Plaintiffs’ 17 “respective positions of the settlement funds will safely accrue interest until such time as 18 they reach the age of majority.” (ECF No. 99-1 at 3). Minor Plaintiffs’ parents, Saint Brown 19 and Christine Brown, plan to put the funds into savings accounts at Navy Federal Credit 20 Union. Id. Given the Court’s duty to safeguard the interests of Minor Plaintiffs, the Court 21 instructs Plaintiffs Saint Brown and Christine Brown to ensure that the chosen savings 22 accounts are federally insured, blocked, interest-bearing accounts offering competitive 23 interest rates. No withdrawal of principal or interest may be made from this account without 24 a written order from this Court or any court of competent jurisdiction. When the minors 25 reach the age of 18, the depository is authorized and directed, without further order of this 26

27 1 All petitions check a box indicating that “[t]he claimant has recovered completely from the effects of 28 1 |}Court or any other court of competent jurisdiction, to pay by check or transfer directly to 2 minors, all funds, including interest, deposited under this Court’s order. 4 After conducting an independent evaluation of the proposed settlement, and 5 ||reviewing the Petition for Minors Compromise, ECF No. 99, along with its supporting 6 ||documents, the Court finds that the proposed settlement of Minor Plaintiffs’ claims of 7 ||$10,000 for each minor with net recoveries of $7,500 for each is fair and reasonable. The 8 || Court RECOMMENDS that District Judge Simmons GRANT the Petition. 9 Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Court 10 || and served on all parties within 14 days of the date this order is docketed. ” 12 13 || Dated: December 29, 2025. 14 15 16 Ho an J. White United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 |} SSS 25 ? While the federal statutory scheme provides a 14-day objections period to a Magistrate Judge’s Report 26 || and Recommendation, the undersigned notes that the petition in this case is unopposed. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; ECF No. 99 at 4). Therefore, if all parties wish to waive the objections period, they should file a 27 joint stipulation to that effect immediately, to allow the Court to adopt this Report and Recommendation 28 without further delay. There will be no adverse consequences to any party who files objections or otherwise chooses not to waive the objection period. □□