Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01642/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01642-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441in Removal- Insurance Contract

---

1

18-cv-1642-W-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

Tera LISICKY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-1642-W-AGS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO APPROVE MINOR’S 

COMPROMISE (ECF No. 21)

Plaintiff S.L., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Adam Lisicky, seeks 

an order approving a proposed settlement of all his claims. Because the settlement serves 

the minor’s best interests, the Court recommends that the motion be granted. 

BACKGROUND

This suit arises from allegations against defendant USAA Casualty Insurance 

Company for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair 

dealing. (ECF No. 20, at 1.) On April 22, 2016, plaintiff Tera Lisicky–who was 31 weeks 

pregnant–was injured in an automobile-related accident. She submitted a claim to USAA 

for payment under her family’s automobile insurance policy. USAA denied plaintiffs’ 

claims, and this action followed. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiffs and defendant reached a settlement through private mediation. The 

Case 3:18-cv-01642-W-AGS Document 25 Filed 07/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18-cv-1642-W-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

settlement agreement was provided to the Court, along with the total settlement amount, 

the amount paid to the non-minor plaintiff, and the amount paid to plaintiffs’ attorney. The 

total settlement amount is , of which S.L. will receive . (Id. at 5.) The 

minor’s funds will be deposited into a structured settlement annuity. (See id. at 9.)

DISCUSSION

District courts have “a special duty” to “safeguard the interests of litigants who are 

minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). In the settlement 

context, that duty requires the court to “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the 

settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Id. (citations omitted). The Court is 

required to limit the scope of its review to “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 

minors’ specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1182. “Most importantly, the 

district court should evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff’s net recovery without 

regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or 

plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id.

Having reviewed the complaint, minor’s compromise motion, and settlement terms, 

the Court is familiar with this case’s facts and legal issues. With that experience in mind, 

the Court recognizes that litigation is always uncertain and concludes that the proposed 

settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the minor’s best interests. Although plaintiffs allege 

that S.L. was born nine weeks premature, there is no indication that he was otherwise badly 

injured as a result of the accident. 

Moreover, the minor’s recovery in this case is reasonable in light of those approved 

in similar cases. See, e.g., Birdgman v. U.S., No. 1:13-cv-0753-SKO, 2014 WL 6610405, 

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2014) (approving an automobile accident settlement where the 

minor received $35,000); Stevens v. United States, No. 4:17-cv-05312-DMR, 2018 WL 

1900159, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2018) (approving an automobile accident settlement 

where the minor received $25,000). 

Case 3:18-cv-01642-W-AGS Document 25 Filed 07/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-1642-W-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

Accordingly, the Court recommends:

1. The motion to approve the settlement be granted; and

2. The compromise and settlement of the claims of minor S.L. be approved as fair,

reasonable, and in his best interest. 

Any objections to this report and recommendation are due by July 31, 2019. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may respond to any such objection within 14 days of being 

served with it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 

Dated: July 17, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01642-W-AGS Document 25 Filed 07/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3