Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00189/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00189-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act

---

1 

19cv189-BAS-AGS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HEATHER LOGUE; L.L; E.L.; A.L.; 

RONALD GREATHOUSE; 

LORRAINE GREATHOUSE, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CURTIS MANAGEMEMT COMPANY, 

INC.; 

THE BLUFFS OF FOX RUN 

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 

Defendants. 

 Case No.: 19cv189-BAS-AGS 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER 

GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

TO CONFIRM MINORS’ 

COMPROMISE 

[ECF No. 30] 

 This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge 

Cynthia A. Bashant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rule 17.1 of the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of California. 

 Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to confirm minors’ 

compromise. ECF No. 30-1 (“Mot.”). Plaintiffs request that the Court approve the proposed 

settlement entered on behalf of A.L., E.L., and L.L. (collectively “Minor Plaintiffs”). Id. at 

3. Minor Plaintiffs are represented by Plaintiff Heather Logue, their guardian ad litem. For 

Case 3:19-cv-00189-BAS-AGS Document 35 Filed 11/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

19cv189-BAS-AGS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs’ motion be 

GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On January 28, 2019, Minor Plaintiffs, along with Plaintiffs Ms. Logue, Ronald 

Greathouse, and Lorraine Greathouse, filed a complaint against Defendants Curtis 

Management Company, Inc. and The Bluffs of Fox Run Homeowners Association 

(collectively “Defendants”) alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 3601 et seq., and related federal and state laws. ECF No. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs alleged 

that Defendants enforced rules at its condominium complex that targeted children and 

discriminated against families with children by preventing children from playing outside 

in the common areas. Id. at 2-4. 

On May 24, 2019, the district judge issued an order granting Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss punitive damages with leave to amend. ECF No. 18. 

On June 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against the 

same Defendants and alleging the same claims as the original complaint. See ECF No. 20. 

On September 12, 2019, the parties settled the case. Mot. at 3; ECF No. 29. Pursuant 

to the proposed settlement, each Minor Plaintiff will receive $2500 for his or her 

compromise. Mot. at 3. 

On November 14, 2019, the Honorable Andrew G. Schopler requested a magistrate 

judge be randomly assigned to handle the motion to confirm minors’ compromise and the 

undersigned magistrate judge was subsequently assigned. ECF No. 34. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), district courts have a special duty 

to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c); CivLR 17.1.a.; 

see also Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011). Rule 17(c) states 

that a district court “must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate 

order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 17(c). With respect to proposed settlements in lawsuits involving minor 

Case 3:19-cv-00189-BAS-AGS Document 35 Filed 11/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

19cv189-BAS-AGS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

plaintiffs, this special duty requires district courts to “conduct [their] own inquiry to 

determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Robidoux v. 

Rosengren, 638 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 

1978)). The district court considers “whether the net amount distributed to each minor 

plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s 

specific claim, and recovery in similar cases . . . without regard to the proportion of the 

total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel . . . .” 

Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d at 1182. 

III. DISCUSSION 

The proposed settlement provides that Minor Plaintiffs will receive $2500 each. 

Mot. at 3. Plaintiffs’ counsel states that attorney’s fees and costs shall not be deducted from 

the amount paid to the three minor plaintiffs. Id.; ECF No. 30-3, Declaration of Douglas F. 

Fagan (“Fagan Decl.”), ¶ 1. Plaintiff Ms. Logue, guardian ad litem and mother to Minor 

Plaintiffs, requests that the settlement proceeds to Minor Plaintiffs be deposited into an 

interest-bearing, federally insured blocked account with a federally insured bank or credit 

union, from which no withdrawals shall be made without a court order until Minor 

Plaintiffs reach the age of majority. ECF No. 30-2, Declaration of Heather Logue (“Logue 

Decl.”), ¶ 5. The parties did not include the other terms of the settlement, including any 

payment to the non-minor Plaintiffs or attorney’s fees. See Mot. 

Plaintiff Ms. Logue contends that the proposed settlement to Minor Plaintiffs is 

reasonable in light of the facts and in comparison with other settlements. Mot. at 6. She 

also states that Minor Plaintiffs did not require any medical treatment or psychiatric 

treatment, and that she did her best to shield them from the alleged discriminatory 

treatment. Logue Decl., ¶¶ 3-4. Ms. Logue states that when she noticed that Defendants 

came outside to glare at Minor Plaintiffs as they played outside, she “would calmly take 

her children back inside their home.” Mot. at 5; Logue Decl., ¶ 3. 

Having considered the facts of the case and settlement amounts approved in similar 

cases, the Court finds the proposed settlement to Minor Plaintiffs is fair and reasonable. 

Case 3:19-cv-00189-BAS-AGS Document 35 Filed 11/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

19cv189-BAS-AGS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The proposed settlement allows for the certainty of recovery for Minor Plaintiffs, as 

opposed to the uncertainty associated with litigation. Also, the potential recovery in this 

case was limited as Minor Plaintiffs were not physically or emotionally injured. Finally, 

the proposed settlement falls within the range of settlement amounts approved for similar 

claims in factually similar cases. See Kirkland v. Brighton Place, L.P., No. 18CV1878-

MMA (BLM), 2019 WL 2059663, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2019) (approving settlement 

amount of $3000 per minor child allegedly prevented from playing in the common areas 

of an apartment complex); Guerra v. Madera Mgmt. Co., No. 1:11-CV-01488-LJO, 2012 

WL 4091994, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. 

1:11-CV-01488-LJO, 2012 WL 4833804 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012) (finding settlement 

amount of $2500 per minor child allegedly prevented from playing outside in the common 

areas of an apartment complex to be fair and reasonable); Bor v. PPC WSSC LLC, No. 11-

CV-03430-LHK, 2012 WL 1438779, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012) (approving 

compromise amounts of $6500, $2500, and $1000 to minor children allegedly prohibited 

from playing in the common areas of an apartment complex); Angstman v. Carlsbad 

Seapoint Resort II, L.P., No. 11CV62 L(WMC), 2011 WL 13356101, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 

30, 2011) (finding settlement amount of $750 per minor child allegedly subjected to similar 

discriminatory rules at a vacation resort to be fair and reasonable); Gonzalez v. Diversified 

Real Prop. Mgmt. & Bus. Servs., Inc., No. SA CV 09-718 PA RNBX, 2010 WL 10105756, 

at *1-3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2010) (approving settlement amount of $2500 per minor child 

allegedly prohibited from playing in the common areas of a condominium complex). 

Accordingly, the Court finds that a net payment of $2500 to each of the three Minor 

Plaintiffs is a reasonable settlement. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS the following: 

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to confirm minors’ compromise be GRANTED. The Minor 

Plaintiffs shall receive the following: 

/ / / 

Case 3:19-cv-00189-BAS-AGS Document 35 Filed 11/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

19cv189-BAS-AGS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a. $2500 to L.L. 

b. $2500 to E.L. 

c. $2500 to A.L. 

2. Within seventy-two hours of receipt of the settlement for Minor Plaintiffs, 

Heather Logue, as guardian ad litem and mother for Minor Plaintiffs, shall 

deposit the check for the minor children into interest-bearing, federally insured 

blocked accounts with a federally insured bank or credit union. The blocked 

accounts are to be opened solely for the benefit of each Minor Plaintiff in this 

case and such funds placed therein cannot be accessed by anybody other than the 

respective Minor Plaintiffs upon reaching the age of eighteen. Plaintiff/Guardian 

Logue shall have no right to access any of the funds in such blocked accounts for 

any reason. 

3. Plaintiff/Guardian Logue shall provide a copy of this order to the depository at 

the time of the deposit. 

4. No withdrawals of principal or interest may be made from the blocked accounts 

without a written order under this case name and number, signed by a judge, and 

bearing the seal of this Court, until the respective minors attain the age of eighteen 

years. When the respective minor attains the age of eighteen years, the 

depository, without further order of this Court, is authorized and directed to pay 

directly to the former minors, upon proper demand, all moneys including interest 

deposited under this order. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this Report and 

Recommendation must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than 

December 11, 2019. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and 

Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with 

the Court and served on all parties no later than December 26, 2019. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise 

Case 3:19-cv-00189-BAS-AGS Document 35 Filed 11/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6 

19cv189-BAS-AGS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 26, 2019 

Case 3:19-cv-00189-BAS-AGS Document 35 Filed 11/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6