Smith v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an unopposed Petition for Minors' Compromise and a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) regarding the settlement of claims for two minor plaintiffs. The court adopted the R&R and approved the petition, ordering the distribution of the minors' net recovery to their parents to be held until the minors reach the age of majority.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation“the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety” | de novo | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for an unopposed R&R. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent, when no timely objections are filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record. The court explicitly noted the absence of objections and found no clear error, making the adoption procedurally sound. |
Approval of Minors' Compromise“APPROVES the Petition” | de novo | agree with court The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minors. While the order relies on the Magistrate Judge's findings for the specific factual basis of this determination, the district judge's independent review for clear error in the absence of objections satisfies the procedural requirements for adopting the recommendation to approve the compromise. |
Ordering Distribution of Funds“the minors’ net recovery—$3,669.50 for C.S. and $2,206.72 for ASS—SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED to Plaintiffs Cody and Michelle Smith to be held until the minors reach the age of majority.” | de novo | agree with court The court ordered the specific distribution of funds to the parents as custodians until the minors reach majority. This is a standard mechanism for handling minor settlements in the absence of a formal guardianship or trust, ensuring the funds are preserved for the beneficiaries. The order is consistent with the approval of the compromise. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable standard of review for an unopposed Report and Recommendation. It cites the correct statutory and case law authorities (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Raddatz, Remsing, Campbell, Reyna-Tapia) to support the conclusion that a clear error review is appropriate when no objections are filed. The court explicitly states it found no clear error and that the compromise was in the minors' best interests, providing a sufficient basis for the adoption and approval.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CODY SMITH; MICHELLE SMITH; Case No.: 20-CV-2359 TWR (AGS) C.S., a minor, by and through his guardian 12 ad litem, BARBARA SPRINGER; and ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 13 A.S., a minor, by and through his guardian & RECOMMENDATION, AND ad litem, BARBARA SPRINGER, (2) APPROVING MINORS’ 14 COMPROMISE Plaintiffs, 15 v. (ECF Nos. 29, 32) 16 CAMP PENDLETON & QUANTICO 17 HOUSING, LLC, a Delaware limited 18 liability company; LPC PENDLETON QUANTICO PM LP, a Delaware limited 19 partnership; LINCOLN MILITARY 20 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LP, a Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 21 1 through 50, inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Petition for Minors’ Compromise (“Pet.,” 26 ECF No. 29), which is unopposed. (See ECF No. 30.) The Honorable Andrew G. Schopler 27 has issued a Report and Recommendation to Approve Minors’ Compromise (“R&R,” ECF 28 No. 32). Having carefully reviewed Plaintiffs’ arguments and exhibits, Magistrate Judge 1 Schopler’s R&R, and the relevant law, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety and 2 APPROVES the Petition. 3 BACKGROUND 4 Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the 5 factual and procedural history underlying the instant Petition. (See R&R at 1–2.) This 6 Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein. 7 LEGAL STANDARD 8 When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a motion pending 9 before a district court judge, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those 10 portion of the report . . . to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, 11 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 12 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United 13 States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[w]hen no timely objection is 14 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 15 in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note 16 to 1983 amendment (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. 17 denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 18 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate 19 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 20 ANALYSIS 21 As of the date of this Order, the Court has received no objections to Magistrate Judge 22 Schopler’s R&R. (See R&R at 5 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than 23 September 22, 2021).) Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well- 24 reasoned, and contains no clear error and that the compromise and settlement of the claims 25 of the minors C.S. and A.S. is fair and reasonable and in their best interests. The Court 26 therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R in its entirety and APPROVES 27 Plaintiffs’ Petition. 28 / / / 1 CONCLUSION 2 In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Schopler’s R&R 3 ||(ECF No. 32) and APPROVES Plaintiffs’ Petition (ECF No. 29). Accordingly, the 4 ||minors’ net recovery—$3,669.50 for C.S. and $2,206.72 for ASS—SHALL BE 5 || DISTRIBUTED to Plaintiffs Cody and Michelle Smith to be held until the minors reach 6 || the age of majority. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: October 14, 2021 | Odd (2 re Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28