Feindt, et al v. United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
PATRICK FEINDT, JR., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________
JESSICA WHALEY, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________
JACLYN HUGHES, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 22-00397 LEK-KJM
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF
FEINDT AND HUGHES MINORS’
CLAIMS (ECF NO. 713)
Civil No. 23-00457 LEK-KJM
Civil No. 24-00059 LEK-KJM
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 737 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

2
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
OF FEINDT AND HUGHES MINORS’ CLAIMS (ECF NO. 713)
On February 27, 2026, the plaintiffs in the Feindt and Hughes cases
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion for Approval of Settlement of Feindt and
Hughes Minors’ Claims (“Motion”). ECF No. 713.1 This is the second motion
filed in this case for approval of minors’ claims. On April 14, 2026, pursuant to
the Court’s request, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of the
Motion. ECF No. 725. On April 28, 2026, Defendant United States of America
(“Defendant”) filed a Response to the Motion. ECF No. 736. The Court did not
permit Plaintiffs to file a reply. ECF No. 717.
The Court elected to decide this matter without a hearing pursuant to Rule
7.1(c) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii. Id.
After carefully considering the parties’ submissions, applicable law, and the
record in this case, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court
GRANT the Motion for the reasons set forth in the Court’s findings and
recommendation on the plaintiffs’ first motion for approval of the settlements of
the minors’ claims, which the district court adopted, as briefly summarized below.
ECF No. 720, 2026 WL 1069447 (D. Haw. Apr. 2, 2026), adopted by ECF No.
1 The Court cites to the Feindt docket, unless otherwise noted.
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 737 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

3
730, 2026 WL 1080359 (D. Haw. Apr. 20, 2026). The Court reiterates and
incorporates by reference the analysis contained in its prior findings and
recommendation. Id.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs filed the Motion seeking approval of the settlements for 176 minor
plaintiffs, 7 minor plaintiffs in the Feindt case and 169 minor plaintiffs in the
Hughes case. In its Response to the Motion, Defendant states that it supports and
joins the Motion. ECF No. 736 at 2, 9.
“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). Rule 17(c) provides, in
relevant part, 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)(2).
The Ninth Circuit has stated that district courts should “focus[] on the
net recovery of the minor plaintiffs under the proposed agreement.” Robidoux,
638 F.3d at 1181. Plaintiffs assert that the subject minors’ net settlement amounts
are calculated by each minor’s gross settlement amount less expenses, 25%
attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, and 4.712% Hawaii
general excise tax. ECF No. 725 at 8.
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 737 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

4
In light of the facts of this case, the minors’ specific claims, and recovery in
similar cases, the Court finds that the settlements for the 176 settling minor
plaintiffs are fair and reasonable. The Court thus recommends that the district
court approve the settlements pursuant to Rule 17(c). See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at
1182 (noting that the Court must determine if each settlement “is fair and
reasonable in light of the facts of the case, each minor’s claims, and typical
recovery by minor plaintiffs in similar cases” and that, “[i]f the net recovery of
each minor plaintiff under the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, the
district court should approve the settlement as presented”).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court FINDS that the settlements for the 176
settling minor plaintiffs are fair and reasonable. The Court thus RECOMMENDS
that the district court GRANT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Settlement of
Feindt and Hughes Minors’ Claims (ECF No. 713).
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 30, 2026.
Feindt v. United States, Civil No. 22-00397 LEK-KJM; Whaley v. United States, Civil No. 23-00457
LEK-KJM; Hughes v. United States, Civil No. 24-00059 LEK-KJM; Findings and Recommendation to
Grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Settlement of Feindt and Hughes Minors’ Claims (ECF No. 713)
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 737 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 4
PageID.<pageID>