Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02087/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02087-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 345
Nature of Suit: Marine Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:2201dj Declaratory Judgment

---

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

THERESA JONES, individually and

as Executrix of the Estate of LANDON

JONES, deceased; A.J., a minor by and

through his Guardian ad Litem,

THERESA JONES; H.J., a minor by

and through his Guardian ad Litem,

THERESA JONES; CHRISTINA

GIBSON; individually and as

Executrix of the Estate of

JONATHAN GIBSON, deceased;

M.G., a minor by and through her

Guardian ad Litem, CHRISTINA

GIBSON; A.G., a minor by and

through his Guardian ad Litem,

CHRISTINA GIBSON,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 15cv2087-WQH-AGS

ORDER

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF THE NAVY; GIBBS & COX,

INC., a New York Corporation; BATH

IRON WORKS CORPORATION, a

Maine Corporation,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors’

Claims filed by all Plaintiffs under seal (ECF No. 111) and the Report and

Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler under

seal (1) recommending that the Court approve the Motion to Approve Compromise of

Minors’ Claims, and (2) recommending that the Court approve the compromise and

settlement of the claims of the Minor Plaintiffs A.J., H.J., M.G., and A.J. as fair and

- 1 - 15cv2087-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-02087-WQH-AGS Document 115 Filed 07/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

reasonable and in the best interests of the Minor Plaintiffs (ECF No. 114).

I. Background

On September 18, 2015, Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for

the deaths of Lieutenant Commander Landon Jones and Chief Warrant Officer 3

Jonathan Gibson. (ECF No. 1). On November 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a first amended

complaint. (ECF No. 9). On May 27, 2016, the Court issued an order granting motions

to dismiss filed by Defendants The Prudential Insurance Company of America

(“Prudential”), the United States, the United States Department of the Navy, Huntington

Ingalls Incorporated (“Huntington”), Gibbs & Cox, Inc. (“Gibbs”), and Bath Iron

Works Corporation (“Bath”). (ECF No. 60). On July 19, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the

second amended complaint, which is the operative pleading in this matter. (ECF No.

73). On December 2, 2016, the Court issued an order denying motions to dismiss filed

by Defendants Iron Works and Gibbs. (ECF No. 96).

On April 25, 2017, Plaintiffs filed under seal the Motion to Approve Compromise

of Minors’ Claims filed by all Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 111). On May 9, 2017, Defendants

Bath and Gibbs filed a joint statement of non-opposition to the Motion to Approve

Compromise of Minors’ Claims. (ECF No. 113).

On June 5, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation,

recommending that the Court approve the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors’

Claims. (ECF No. 114). The Magistrate Judge ordered that any objections to the

recommendations be submitted by June 19, 2017. The docket reflects that no party has

filed an objection to the report and recommendation.

II. Review of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 114)

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and

28 U.S.C. 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

objection is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

- 2 - 15cv2087-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-02087-WQH-AGS Document 115 Filed 07/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The

district court need not review de novo the portions of a report and recommendation to

which no party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005);

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

After a review of the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors’ Claims filed

by all Plaintiffs (ECF No. 111) and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 114),

the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s determination that the settlement between

Plaintiffs and Gibbs and Bath is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Minor

Plaintiffs A.J., H.J., M.G., and A.J. See Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181

(9th Cir. 2011).

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

114) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and (2) the Motion to Approve Compromise of

Minors’ Claims filed by all Plaintiffs (ECF No. 111) is GRANTED.

DATED: July 11, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 15cv2087-WQH-AGS

Case 3:15-cv-02087-WQH-AGS Document 115 Filed 07/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3