Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01834/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01834-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:3604(f)(3)(c) Fair Housing Amendments Act

---

1

16-cv-1834-CAB-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

Isaura CORTES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONAL COMMUNITY 

RENAISSANCE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-cv-1834-CAB-AGS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO GRANT THE JOINT MOTION 

TO CONFIRM MINORS’

COMPROMISE (ECF NO. 26)

Isaura Cortes, plaintiff and guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiffs M.C. and J.C., 

seeks an order approving a proposed settlement of the minor plaintiffs’ claims against 

defendants National Community Renaissance and the City of Oceanside. Because the 

settlement serves the minors’ best interests, the Court recommends that the motion be

granted.

BACKGROUND

This suit arises from allegations that the onsite manager of defendants’ housing 

community discriminated against plaintiffs because of their race and harassed Ms. Cortes

to prevent her children from playing in common areas. Plaintiffs contend that this and other 

acts created a hostile living environment for Hispanics and families with children. Plaintiffs 

argue these allegations support a claim under the Fair Housing Act and related state law as 

discrimination against a person because of race, national origin, and familial status.

Plaintiffs and defendants reached a settlement through private mediation. Each 

Case 3:16-cv-01834-CAB-AGS Document 28 Filed 02/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-cv-1834-CAB-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

minor will recover $8,000. Plaintiffs represent that neither minor was physically harmed 

nor have they sought mental health treatment because of the alleged discrimination. The 

parties did not include the other terms of the settlement, including any payment to the nonminor plaintiff or amounts paid to plaintiffs’ attorney.

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 and been privy to the parties’ briefing and 

discussions at the Early Neutral Evaluation, the Court concludes that the proposed 

settlement is in the minors’ best interests. The Court recognizes that litigation is always 

uncertain. But the parties have completed discovery, and the potential recovery in this case 

was limited, as the minors were not physically or emotionally injured.

Moreover, the Court has compared the settlement in this case to those approved in 

similar cases—including the ones in plaintiffs’ brief—and finds that it is similar to or 

greater than what other courts have approved. See, e.g., Milton v. Regency Park 

Apartments, No. 2:13-cv-01284-KJM-CKD, 2015 WL 546045, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 

Feb. 9, 2015) (approving a housing discrimination settlement in which each minor received 

$10,000 and collecting similar cases with minors all receiving less than $5,000 per minor); 

Bor v. PPC WSSC LLC, No. 11-cv-03430-LHK, 2012 WL 1438779, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 25, 2012) (approving a housing discrimination settlement for three minors for $10,000 

Case 3:16-cv-01834-CAB-AGS Document 28 Filed 02/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-cv-1834-CAB-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

in aggregate); Pack v. Fort Washington, LLC, No. 1:08cv0177 DLB, 2010 WL 653853, at 

*1, 3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2010) (approving a housing discrimination settlement for two 

minor for $8,000 each). The parties’ failure to tell the Court the entire amount of settlement 

or the attorney’s fees paid is irrelevant, as the Court is not permitted to consider those 

things. See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1182. 

Accordingly, this Court recommends:

1. The motion to approve the settlement be granted.

2. The compromise and settlement of the claims of the minors, M.C. and J.C., be 

approved as fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs.

Any objections to this report and recommendation are due by February 27, 2018.

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: February 13, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-01834-CAB-AGS Document 28 Filed 02/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3