Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MEGAN BURIAK, individually and on Case No.: 3:23-cv-01585-L-DEB behalf of JAMES P. BURIAK, deceased, 12 et al, REPORT AND 13 RECOMMENDATION REGARDING Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED 14 v. PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S 15 COMPROMISE OF CLAIM SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORP., a 16 Delaware Corporation, 17 Defendants. [ECF No. 79] 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Megan Buriak’s Unopposed Petition to Approve 20 Minor’s Compromise of Claim. (ECF No. 79.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 21 RECOMMENDS to the Honorable M. James Lorenz that Plaintiff’s Petition to Approve 22 Minor’s Compromise of Claim be GRANTED. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff C.B. is a minor appearing by and through his mother and guardian ad litem, 25 Megan Buriak. 26 According to the allegations in the operative complaint, on August 31, 2021, a MH- 27 60S “Seahawk” helicopter, Bureau Number 167899, assigned to the U.S.S. Abraham 28 Lincoln, crashed into the ocean, killing Petty Officer Second Class James P. Buriak and 1 crew. (ECF No. 9 ¶ 27.) A “catastrophic failure of [the helicopter’s] yellow main rotor 2 blade damper hose [occurred] in flight, resulting in total loss of main rotor system 3 dampening, which induced severe vibrations and uncontrollable ground resonance upon 4 touchdown.” Id. ¶ 32. The helicopter and damper system were designed and manufactured 5 by Defendant Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (“Sikorsky”). (Id. ¶ 17.) 6 On August 29, 2023, Plaintiffs Megan Buriak, C.B., a minor, Jill Culpepper, Lucas 7 Burns, and Brad Bilyeu (collectively “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Sikorsky 8 in the United States District Court, Southern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On 9 February 05, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (ECF No. 9.) 10 Plaintiffs alleged claims of strict liability and negligence pursuant to the Death on the High 11 Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 30301-30308 (“DOHSA”) and sought damages arising out of the 12 August 31, 2021, helicopter crash and resulting death of Buriak, Burns, and Tucker. (Id. 13 ¶¶ 12, 40-70.) The SAC alleges that C.B. has suffered pecuniary losses, including loss of 14 financial support, household services, and prospective inheritance, as well as the loss of his 15 father’s love, care, companionship, guidance, and moral support. (Id. ¶ 70.) 16 On March 9, 2026, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt was assigned to handle the 17 minor’s compromise in this case. (ECF No. 71.) 18 On April 29, 2026, Plaintiff Megan Buriak filed an Unopposed Petition to Approve 19 Minor’s Compromise of Claim which sets forth the terms of the settlement reached with 20 Megan Buriak and C.B. and the intended distribution of the settlement proceeds. (ECF 21 No. 79.) On May 8, 2026, and May 11, 2026, renewed Unopposed Motions to File 22 Unredacted Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise and Settlement Materials Under 23 Seal were filed. (ECF Nos. 81, 82.)1 24 25 1 After consideration of the revised motions to file under seal, the Court finds 26 compelling reason to seal the settlement amounts and the financial distribution to the minor 27 beneficiary as this is highly sensitive information and redacting it will protect the interests of the parties, especially the minor. See Medina v. Cnty. of Monterey, No. 24-cv-0053- 28 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 District courts have a special duty to safeguard the interests of minor litigants. “In 3 the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty 4 requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement 5 serves the best interests of the minor.’” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 683 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th 6 Cir. 2011) (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1978)). Courts 7 reviewing the settlement of a minor’s federal claim in the Ninth Circuit should “limit the 8 scope of their review to the question whether the net amount distributed to each minor 9 plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s 10 specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181-82. Thus, the 11 court’s inquiry should be without consideration of adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiff’s 12 counsel’s designated proportions of the total settlement. Id. (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 13 1078 (1978)). 14 Regarding the court’s duty to safeguard the minor’s interests, Southern District of 15 California Local Civil Rule 17.1.a provides, 16 “[n]o action by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, in which a minor or incompetent has an interest, will be settled, compromised, voluntarily 17 dismissed or terminated without court order or judgement. All settlements 18 and compromises must be reviewed by a magistrate judge before any order of approval will issue. The parties may, with district judge approval, consent to 19 magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for entry of an order 20 approving the entire settlement compromise.”

22 23 Circuit “have found compelling reasons to seal settlement amounts in individual settlements, especially where those settlements involve minors.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 24 May 11, 2026, Renewed Unopposed Motion to File Unredacted Petition for Approval of 25 Minor’s Compromise and Settlement Materials Under Seal is GRANTED. (ECF No. 82). On May 8, 2026, Plaintiff also filed a Renewed Unopposed Motion to File Unredacted 26 Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise and Settlement Materials Under Seal. (ECF 27 No. 81.) As the relief requested is contained within the May 11, 2026, motion, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court shall file under seal the 28 1 CivLR 17.1.a. The Court is required to determine whether the settlement is in the best 2 interests of the minor, considering not only the fairness of the settlement, but also the 3 structure and manner of the plan for the payment and distribution of the assets for the 4 benefit of the minor. See CivLR 17.1.b. 5 As Plaintiffs’ claims have been brought under the DOHSA, the Court will evaluate 6 the reasonableness and fairness of Plaintiff’s settlement under the Robidoux framework. 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 To fulfill its special duty to safeguard the interests of minors in the context of 9 settlements proposed in a civil suit, the Court will analyze the reasonableness of the 10 proposed settlement. 11 A. Proposed Net Settlement Amount for Minor Plaintiff. 12 1. Terms of Settlement 13 As set forth in the agreement, the total settlement amount to be awarded to 14 Plaintiffs Megan Buriak and minor Plaintiff C.B is $962,566.81. (ECF No. 83-1 ¶ 2.) The 15 proceeds are to be divided as follows: $802,566.81 to Plaintiff Megan Buriak; $160,000 to 16 New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation FBO Brian Lawler to partially fund 17 attorney Brian Lawler’s periodic payments2 and discharge Megan Buriak’s obligation to 18 pay attorney fees; $3,111.77 to Brian Lawler for life, payable monthly, guaranteed for 20 19 years, beginning on March 1, 2028; $94,056.51 (approximately ten percent) to C.B. to be 20 paid from the amount awarded to Megan Buriak. (Id. ¶¶ 2.a-b, g.i-ii.) 21 22 23 24 2 The periodic payments to Brian Lawler are also being funded by payments made 25 pursuant to the releases signed by Lucas Burns and Brad Bilyeu. (ECF No. 83-1 ¶ 2.a.ii.) Following the guidance provided in Robidoux, the Court will focus its review on whether 26 the net recovery to minor C.B. is reasonable, “without regard to the amount received by 27 adult co-plaintiffs and what they have agreed to pay plaintiffs’ counsel.” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. Accordingly, the Court refrains from performing a review of the attorney’s 28 1 Minor C.B.’s settlement award will be distributed from Pilot Law’s Client Trust 2 Account directly into two blocked accounts: $62,704.34 will be placed in a Uniform 3 Transfer to Minor’s Account (“UTMA”), and $31,352.17 will be placed in a Transfer on 4 Death (“TOD”) Account. (Id. ¶¶ 2.g.i-ii.) 5 As part of the settlement agreement, Plaintiff Megan Buriak individually, as the 6 personal representative of the estate of James P. Buriak, and as the guardian ad litem for 7 the minor C.B. (referred to as “Releasor”) agrees to release Defendant from all claims and 8 liabilities of any nature. (Id. ¶ 3.) Releasor also agrees to release and discharge all claims 9 and causes of action for all losses and damages arising from or related to the incident 10 forming the basis of this suit, including those presently known and unknown. (Id. ¶ 4.) 11 Further, Releasor agrees to fully satisfy and indemnify and hold harmless Defendants from 12 any liens held by any health care providers, insurance companies, Medicare or Medicaid, 13 or other professionals. (Id. ¶ 5.) Additionally, Releasor agrees to uphold confidentiality 14 and refrain from making public statements concerning this action or agreement. (Id. ¶ 8.) 15 2. Analysis 16 Minor Plaintiff C.B.’s $94,056.51 net recovery reflects fair compensation for his 17 alleged damages resulting from the death of his father. This proposed recovery is similar 18 to the approved recoveries garnered by settling minors in other cases in this Circuit. See, 19 e.g., Est. of Villalobos v. U.S., No. 22-cv-0315-RBM-AHG-MMP, 2025 WL 2638531, at 20 *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025) (holding minor plaintiff’s net recovery of $108,046.04 to be 21 fair and reasonable when father was killed in altercation with border patrol agents); Est. of 22 Alvarado v. Tackett, No. 13cv1202-LL, 2019 WL 4573714, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 23 2019) (approving net recovery of $55,000 for each minor plaintiff as reasonable in action 24 for alleged wrongful death of parent); Est. of Cesena v. U.S., No. 15-CV-2241-WVG, 25 2018 WL 538963, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) (finding minor’s net recovery of 26 $45,306.40 after fees and costs to be fair and reasonable in case alleging wrongful death of 27 father); Napier by and through Quiroz v. San Diego Cnty., No. 15-cv-00581-CAB-(KSC), 28 2017 WL 5759803, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017) (holding minor’s net recovery of 1 $41,125.00 for wrongful death of parent to be reasonable based on facts of the case). See 2 also M.A.L. v. City of Fontana, No. 15-cv-00940-VAP (SPx), 2019 WL 13032400, at *10 3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019) (finding net recovery of $50,034.58 for each minor plaintiff fair 4 and reasonable in wrongful death of parent suit). 5 Here, the facts surrounding Plaintiffs’ claims have been thoroughly investigated and 6 developed, the settlement allows for certainty of recovery for the minor Plaintiff C.B., and 7 the recovery is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Thus, upon consideration of 8 the facts of the case, Plaintiff’s claims, the risk associated with trial, and the recoveries in 9 similar actions, the Court concludes that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable 10 under the Robidoux standard. 11 B. Method of Disbursement 12 “Money or property recovered by a minor or incompetent California resident by 13 settlement or judgment must be paid and disbursed in accordance with California Probate 14 Code Section 3600, et seq.” CivLR 17.1.b.1. Under California law, several options for the 15 disbursement of settlement funds to a minor are available to courts. See Cal. Prob. Code 16 § 3610 (“When money or other property is to be paid or delivered for the benefit of a minor 17 or person with a disability under a compromise, covenant, order or judgment, . . . the 18 remaining balance of the money . . . shall be paid, delivered, deposited, or invested as 19 provided in this article.”). See also Cal. Prob. Code § 3611(f) (“If the remaining balance 20 of the money and other property to be paid or delivered is to be paid or delivered for the 21 benefit of the minor, that all or any part of the money and other property be transferred to 22 a custodian for the benefit of the minor under the California Uniform Transfers to Minors 23 Act, Part 9 (commencing with Section 3900).”). 24 Per the settlement agreement, Defendant will make a one-time payment via check or 25 wire transfer to the Client Trust Account of Pilot Law P.C. to account number ending 3155, 26 routing number ending 0358 of $802,566.81, payable to Plaintiff Megan Buriak. (ECF No. 27 28 1 83-1 ¶ 2.a.i.) Plaintiff’s attorney will distribute funds from the Client Trust Account into 2 two separate blocked accounts for C.B.: $62,704.34 will be placed in Uniform Transfer to 3 Minor’s Account (“UTMA”), ending in 8549, and $31,352.17 will be placed in Transfer 4 on Death (“TOD”) Account, ending in 5680. (Id. ¶ 2.g.i.) 5 The proposed method of disbursement of the settlement funds for the minor is 6 consistent with the California Probate Code. The Court finds the manner of the 7 disbursement of settlement funds into the two trust accounts on behalf of C.B. to be 8 appropriate. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 After conducting an independent evaluation of the proposed settlement, and 11 reviewing the Petition for Minors Compromise, along with its supporting documents, the 12 Court finds the settlement of Minor Plaintiff’s claims for a net recovery of $94,056.51 to 13 be fair and reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS to the 14 Honorable M. James Lorenz that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise be GRANTED. 16 2. Within seventy-two hours of receipt of a check payable to the Client Trust Account 17 on behalf of Megan Buriak, Attorney Brian Lawler deposit the minor Plaintiff’s net 18 settlement amount ($94,056.51) into the blocked accounts ($62,704.34 in the 19 UTMA, $31,352.17 in the TOD). Until C.B. reaches the age of majority, no 20 withdrawals of principal or interest may be made from either blocked account 21 without an order from the appropriate state court. When the minor reaches the age 22 23 24 3 Per the Parties’ agreement, Defendant will also make a one-time payment via check 25 or wire transfer to New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation FBO Brian Lawler of $160,000.00. (ECF No.83-1 ¶ 2.a.ii.) Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees will be paid in monthly 26 payments of $3,111.77, beginning on 03/01/2028, with guaranteed payments for 20 years. 27 (Id. ¶ 2.b.i.) These payments will first be funded by the $160,000.00 deposited into the New York Life Insurance Account. (Id.) 28 1 of eighteen, the depository, without further order of the Court, is authorized to pay 2 by check or draft directly to the Plaintiff, upon proper demand, all monies due under 3 the Court’s order. Attorney Brian Lawler shall deliver a copy of the order to the 4 depository at the time of the deposit. 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this Report and 6 ||Recommendation regarding approval of the minor’s compromise must be filed with the 7 ||Court and served on all parties within 14 days of the date this order is docketed.4 The 8 document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 |}Dated: August 3, 2026 - bande 11 n. Jill L. Burkhardt 12 ited States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 6 4 While the federal statutory scheme provides a 14-day objections period to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the undersigned notes that the petition in 27 || this case 1s unopposed. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; ECF No. 79.) Therefore, if all parties wish 28 to waive the objections period, they should file a joint stipulation to that effect as soon as practicable.