Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02011/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02011-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Notice of Removal - Suit against Federal Officer

---

1

19-cv-02011-JLB-BGS

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

Thomas OLMSTED, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-cv-02011-JLB-BGS

ORDER GRANTING MINORS 

COMPROMISE 

[ECF NO. 25]

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Confirm Minors’ Compromise filed 

by the guardian ad litem, Avery Olmsted, on behalf of minor Plaintiffs Porter Olmsted 

and Cannon Olmsted (“minor Plaintiffs”). After reviewing the Petitions and all 

supporting documents, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the 

motion.

I. BACKGROUND

This suit arises from the allegations that San Diego Family Housing LLC and 

Lincoln Military Property Management LP breached their implied warranty of 

habitability in the Plaintiffs’ rental property due to excessive water damage and moisture. 

(ECF Nos. 25-2, 25-3.) Plaintiffs, Thomas Olmsted, Avery Olmsted, Cannon Olmsted 

(through his guardian ad litem, Avery Olmsted), and Porter Olmsted (through his 

Case 3:19-cv-02011-JLB-BGS Document 27 Filed 04/14/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

19-cv-02011-JLB-BGS

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

guardian ad litem, Avery Olmsted), resided in military housing within The Village at the 

Naval Training Center in San Diego. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants 

expressly and impliedly warranted that the property would remain habitable, not interfere 

with the Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment, and maintain the property in a manner to keep it 

habitable. (ECF No. 1-2.) Specifically, the minor Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants 

owed them a duty of care to avoid injuring the minor Plaintiffs or damaging their 

personal property. (ECF No. 1-2.) The Plaintiffs also alleged that the property at issue 

was defective in repair and in maintenance, with water intrusion, leaks, and other 

moisture and condensation damage. (ECF No. 1-2.) The Plaintiffs claimed that the 

Defendants knew about the defects and that the Defendants had failed to timely repair the 

property, in a negligent and/or unreasonable fashion. (ECF No. 1-2.)

This action was initially filed in California Superior Court and was removed to this 

Court on October 18, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) Minor Plaintiffs only alleged a claim of 

negligence. (ECF No. 1-2.) No injuries were sustained by minor Plaintiffs, thus damages 

were based on emotional distress only. (ECF No. 25-2, pg. 2; 25-3, pg. 2.) On November 

25, 2019, the Court granted a Joint Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the action with 

prejudice as to Defendants Lincoln/Clark San Diego, LLC, Lincoln Property Company 

Southwest, Inc., LMH Manager, Inc., Lincoln Military Housing Holdings, LLC, and 

LMH Military Property Management Tempco, LLC, (“Moving Defendants”). (ECF No. 

14-15.) The remaining Defendants, San Diego Family Housing LLC and Lincoln Military 

Property Management LP, filed their Joint Discovery Plan on November 26, 2019. (ECF 

No. 16.) On December 9, 2019, an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference was held before 

Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, where parties settled. (ECF No. 17.) On April 1st, 

2020, guardian ad litem Avery Olmsted filed expedited petitions for approval of the 

minors’ compromise of claims. (ECF Nos. 25-2, 25-3.)

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs assert that the parties have settled with respect to the entire case and seek 

an order confirming the claims of the minor Plaintiffs, Porter Olmsted and Cannon 

Case 3:19-cv-02011-JLB-BGS Document 27 Filed 04/14/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

19-cv-02011-JLB-BGS

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

Olmsted. (ECF No. 25-2, pg.3; 25-3, pg. 3.) The proposed gross settlement amount is 

$500.00 for each minor. Attorneys fees to be paid from the settlement proceeds would be 

25% of the gross amount, or $125.00 for each minor. The balance of the settlement 

proceeds available to be paid to each claimant after deducting attorney’s fees and costs, 

will be $375.00 for each minor. Plaintiffs contend that the settlement is reasonable in 

light of the facts of this case and in light of other settlements under similar circumstances. 

No objections have been filed to the Petition.

“District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

17(c), “to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 

638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) provides that 

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

protect a minor . . . who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). “In the 

context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty 

requires a district court to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement 

serves the best interests of the minor.’” Id. (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 

1080 (9th Cir. 1978)); see also Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 

1983) (“Thus, a court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise 

or settlement of a minor’s claims to assure itself that the minor’s interests are protected. . 

. even if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the minor’s parent or 

guardian ad litem”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 17.1, “[no] action by or on behalf of a 

minor . . . will be settled, compromised, voluntarily discontinued, dismissed or terminated 

without court order or judgment.” Civ. L. R. 17.1. 

District courts should “limit the scope of their review to the question 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.” 

Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82. “[T]he 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 the adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel—whose interests the 

Case 3:19-cv-02011-JLB-BGS Document 27 Filed 04/14/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

19-cv-02011-JLB-BGS

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

district court has no special duty to safeguard.” Id. at 1182. “So long as the net recovery 

to each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery 

in similar cases, the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the 

parties.” Id.

In this case, the proposed minors’ compromise will result in each minor plaintiff

receiving $375.00. No party has filed any objections and courts have approved 

settlements allowing for similar recovery by minor plaintiffs under similar circumstances.

After considering the facts of this case, the minor Plaintiffs’ specific claims, and the 

recovery in similar cases, the Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and in the 

best interests of the minor Plaintiffs. The Motion to Confirm Minors’ Compromise is 

granted.

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Confirm Minors’ Compromise is 

GRANTED. (ECF No. 25). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

1. The gross settlement amount in favor of each minor Plaintiff, Porter Olmsted 

and Cannon Olmsted, is $500.00 and is to be paid to each claimant jointly 

and severally by San Diego Family Housing LLC and Lincoln Military 

Property Management LP.

2. From the settlement amount, fees and expenses will be paid by one or more 

checks, payable to the order of the petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, or 

directly to third parties entitled to receive payment identified in this order, 

for attorneys fees in the amount of $125.00 for each claimant ($125.00 to 

“Miller injury attorneys in trust for Cannon Olmsted” and $125.00 to “Miller 

injury attorneys in trust for Porter Olmsted”) to be paid out of the settlement 

proceeds.

3. The balance of the settlement proceeds, $375.00 for each claimant, will be 

paid and delivered to a parent of the minor, upon the terms and under the 

conditions specified in probate code sections 3401–3402, without bond. The 

Case 3:19-cv-02011-JLB-BGS Document 27 Filed 04/14/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

19-cv-02011-JLB-BGS

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

name and address of the parent whom the money or other property is to be 

delivered to is: Avery Olmsted, Guardian Ad Litem and mother of claimants, 

4608 E. Devonshire Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85018.

Dated: April 14, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02011-JLB-BGS Document 27 Filed 04/14/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5