Spangler v. San Diego Family Housing, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an amended motion to approve a settlement for minor plaintiffs after previously expressing concern that the initial proposed net recovery of $500 per minor was too low. The court recommended granting the amended motion, approving a net recovery of $2,500 per minor, and ordering the funds to be placed in a blocked account.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Recommendation to grant the amended motion to approve the settlement of minor plaintiffs' claims.“The amended motion to approve the settlement (ECF 47) be GRANTED.” | agree with court The court found that the increased settlement amount addressed its prior concerns regarding the adequacy of the recovery compared to similar cases. The court explicitly stated that the new amount is a fair division, in the minors' best interests, and consistent with past settlements, citing a specific comparable case. This follows the standard for approving settlements involving minors. |
Recommendation to approve the compromise as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minors.“The Court find that the compromise and settlement of the claims of the minors I.S. and ES. be APPROVED as fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs.” | agree with court The court applied the 'best interests' standard, which is the appropriate legal standard for settlements involving minors. The reasoning provided (comparison to similar cases and fairness of division) supports this conclusion. |
Recommendation to place the minors' net recovery in a blocked account.“The minors’ net recovery be placed in a blocked account until further Court order or the minors reach the age of 18.” | agree with court Blocking accounts are a standard protective measure for settlements involving minors to ensure funds are preserved for their benefit until they reach majority or the court orders otherwise. This is a routine and appropriate order in this context. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a Report and Recommendation, not a final judgment, but the reasoning is sound. It directly addresses the court's prior concern (low settlement amount) by noting the increase to $2,500 per minor. It supports this approval by citing a specific, analogous case from the same district involving the same defendant, which provides a concrete benchmark for 'fairness' and 'best interests.' The procedural steps (blocked account) are standard and appropriate. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this specific, limited ruling.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Morgan SPANGLER, Arisa Spangler, Case No.: 3:20-cv-2287-W-AGS E.S., and I.S.; 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiffs, TO APPROVE AMENDED MINORS’ 5 v. COMPROMISE (ECF 47) 6 SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC;; 7 LPC Pendelton Quantico PM LP, Lincoln Military Property Management LP; and 8 Does 1 through 50, 9 Defendants. 10 11 Four days ago, this Court recommended denying plaintiffs’ and the minor plaintiffs’ 12 Guardian Ad Litem’s joint motion to approve the proposed settlement of minor plaintiffs’ 13 claims. (See ECF 46.) Specifically, although the Court approved of the attorneys’ fees 14 distribution and the distribution method of the minors’ settlement shares, the $500 net 15 recovery per minor from a $100,000 settlement concerned this Court, especially 16 considering recoveries in similar cases. (See id. at 3-4.) Plaintiffs and the minors’ guardian, 17 having “carefully considered” this Court’s recommendation, “understand and appreciate 18 the Court’s concern” and now seek approval with each minor receiving “$2,500.” (See 19 ECF 47, at 2.) Approving this settlement amount is a fair division of the settlement 20 proceeds, is in the minors’ best interests, and is more in line with past similar settlements. 21 See, e.g., Doe v. Lincoln Mil. Prop. Mgmt. LP, No. 320CV00224GPCAHG, 2020 WL 22 5587488, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2020), adopted, No. 320CV00224GPCAHG, 23 2020 WL 5810168 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2020) (approving a “$1,277.04” net recovery for a 24 minor out of a gross “$69,000” settlement in a similar case). Given that change, and for the 25 reasons stated in the Court’s previous report and recommendation, the Court recommends 26 that: 27 a. The amended motion to approve the settlement (ECF 47) be GRANTED. 28 1 b. The Court find that the compromise and settlement of the claims of the minors I.S. and ES. be APPROVED as fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs. 3 c. The minors’ net recovery be placed in a blocked account until further Court 4 order or the minors reach the age of 18. (See ECF 44, at 2.) 5 Any objections to this report and recommendation are due by May 2, 2022. See 6 ||28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of being 7 || served with it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 8 Dated: April 18, 2022 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28