Brown et al v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing, LLC et al

1
23CV567-JES-DDL
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
SAINT BROWN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAN DIEGO FAMILY HOUSING, LLC,
a limited liability company; LINCOLN
MILITARY PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT LP, a limited
partnership,
Defendants.
Case No.: 23-CV-00567-JES-DDL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FOR ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR APPROVAL OF MINORS
COMPROMISE AND FINDING THE
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT FAIR
AND REASONABLE
[ECF No. 99]
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Petition for Minors Compromise for Plaintiffs T. B.,
L. B., C. B., and B. B. (ECF No. 99). This Report and Recommendation is submitted to
United States District Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 17.1 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Case 3:23-cv-00567-JES-DDL Document 102 Filed 12/29/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 6

2
23CV567-JES-DDL
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
California. After considering the Petition and its supporting documents, and for the below
reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that District Judge Simmons GRANT the Petition.
BACKGROUND
This case was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Diego on
March 30, 2023. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs Saint Brown, Christine Brown, and Minor
Plaintiffs T. B., L. B., C. B., and B. B., by and through their guardian ad litem, Peggy Jo
Souder-Broome, brought this case following the allegedly harmful conditions caused by
mold in their leased housing within the boundaries of United States Marine Corps Air
Station Miramar. (ECF No. 1 at 31–56, Compl.; ECF No. 1-2 ¶ 7; ECF No. 72 at 7–8).
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges, among other things, Minor Plaintiffs “consistently felt
cold and flu-like symptoms including coughs, colds, and sore throats.” (Compl. ¶ 16).
Minor Plaintiff T.B. allegedly “suffered a prolonged focal seizure for ten (10) minutes”
that neurologists connected to toxic mold. (Compl. ¶ 17, 36; ECF No. 99-1 at 2, 72).
Among them, the Minor Plaintiffs also allege experiencing nausea, dizziness, swollen face,
heart palpitations, an ear infection, and ear infection symptoms that were diagnosed as
fungal otitis externa. (Compl. ¶ 59). They allege these were caused by mold exposure. Id.
This case has been litigated extensively. On March 25, 2025, Judge Simmons
granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, leaving only
Plaintiffs’ negligence claim pending. (ECF Nos. 74, 78). In a settlement conference held
by Magistrate Judge David Leshner on October 8, 2025, the parties agreed to a settlement
and put its terms on the record. (ECF No. 97). The matter was referred to this Court for
review of the minor’s compromise. (ECF Nos. 99, 100). The Court has considered the
Petition for Minors Compromise, ECF No. 99, and for the reasons set forth below,
RECOMMENDS that the petition be GRANTED.
LEGAL STANDARD
“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) requires district courts to appoint guardians ad
Case 3:23-cv-00567-JES-DDL Document 102 Filed 12/29/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 6

3
23CV567-JES-DDL
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
litem or issue appropriate orders to protect minors. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). In this context of
a proposed settlement in a case involving a minor, “this special duty requires a district court
to ‘conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of
the minor.’” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075,
1080 (9th Cir. 1978).
To conduct the inquiry, in Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit instructed district courts to
“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.” 638 F.3d at 1181–82. This should
be done “without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult
co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ counsel[.]” Id. at 1182. The Ninth Circuit limited its holding in
Robidoux to the context of settlements of minors’ federal claims and did “not express a
view” on the approach for a federal court considering approval of a minor’s state law
claims. Id. at 1179 n.2. District courts sometimes apply the analysis in Robidoux and
sometimes the statutory scheme provided in the California Probate Code (which focuses
on reasonableness and the best interests of the minor) for approval of a minor's compromise
under state law. See Martinez v. Venegas, No. 23-CV-0130-CAB-BGS, 2023 WL 5811837,
at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2023). The Court need not determine which standard applies to
this case because it would not change the Court’s conclusion. See id. (“[I]t is not necessary
for the Court to resolve the question of whether Robidoux or state rules apply. The outcome
is the same.”).
DISCUSSION
A. Proposed Settlement
The parties’ settlement constitutes a gross amount of $550,000, with a proposed split
of $255,000 to each of Plaintiffs Saint Brown and Christine Brown, and amounts of
$10,000 to each of the four Minor Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 99 at 3; ECF No. 99-1 ¶ 8). Under
the proposed settlement, Minor Plaintiffs would each receive net amounts of $7,500.00,
after the subtraction of $2,500.00 in attorney’s fees from each payment. (ECF No. 99 at 3;
Case 3:23-cv-00567-JES-DDL Document 102 Filed 12/29/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 6

4
23CV567-JES-DDL
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
99-1 at 10 (petition form for B.B.), 32 (petition form for C.B.), 54 (petition form for L.B.),
and 76 (petition form for T.B.)). The proposed procedure for disbursement and distribution
is for Minor Plaintiffs’ parents, Christine Brown and Saint Brown, to receive and
“immediately deposit the funds into separate savings accounts for each of the respective
minor Plaintiffs upon reaching the age of majority.” (ECF No. 99 at 5; see also ECF No.
99-2, Decl. of Saint Brown, ¶ 2).
Considering the facts of Minor Plaintiffs’ case, Minor Plaintiffs’ claims, recovery in
similar cases, and the best interests of Minor Plaintiffs, the Court finds the minors’
settlement fair and reasonable. See Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181–82; Cal. Prob. Code §
3611. Previous cases in this district have addressed similar settlements following similar
allegations. In Beck v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Hous., LLC, a case in which minor
plaintiffs alleged harms, including emotional distress, chronic headaches, allergy-type
symptoms, and insomnia, caused by mold in leased housing, the court found proposed
settlements of $5,000 ($3,750 after attorney’s fees) to each minor plaintiff fair and
reasonable. No. 20-CV-579-LAB-WVG, 2022 WL 18460770, at *1–2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14,
2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 20-CV-579-LAB (WVG), 2023 WL
411351 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2023). In Tipton v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Hous., LLC, a
case where two minor plaintiffs alleged harms due to “black mold and other toxic
chemicals,” the court found proposed settlements of $5,000 for each minor, with net
recoveries of $3,750, fair and reasonable. No. 22-CV-00167-W-AHG, 2022 WL 5133481,
at *1–2, 5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2022).
In this case, “Plaintiffs have continued to see various doctors and medical providers,
and at this time there is no indication that any of the minor Plaintiffs have any ongoing
symptoms that would require additional future medical care related to the condition of the
Leased Property.” (ECF 99-1 at 2). Still, Minor Plaintiffs allege suffering serious medical
Case 3:23-cv-00567-JES-DDL Document 102 Filed 12/29/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 6

5
23CV567-JES-DDL
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
issues, including Plaintiff T.B.’s alleged seizure.1 Accordingly, the settlement amounts for
Minor Plaintiffs here, which are higher than those approved in Beck and Tipton, appear fair
and reasonable under the circumstances.
B. Attorney’s Fees
“[F]ees in minors cases have historically been limited to 25% of the gross recovery.”
Napier by & through Quiroz v. San Diego Cnty., No. 15-CV-00581-CAB-KSC, 2017 WL
5759803, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017). When evaluating whether the attorney’s fee is
reasonable, courts consider factors that include (1) the amount of the fee in proportion to
the value of the services performed, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved
and skills required, (3) the amount involved and the results obtained, and (4) the experience
and ability of the attorney. Estate of Serna v. County of San Diego, No. 20-CV-2096-BAS-
DDL, 2024 WL 4152362, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2024). This case has been litigated for
multiple years, past the summary judgment stage, and the Court finds that the proposed
attorney’s fees of 25% are appropriate.
C. 	Interest-Bearing Accounts
Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration states that under the proposal Minor Plaintiffs’
“respective positions of the settlement funds will safely accrue interest until such time as
they reach the age of majority.” (ECF No. 99-1 at 3). Minor Plaintiffs’ parents, Saint Brown
and Christine Brown, plan to put the funds into savings accounts at Navy Federal Credit
Union. Id. Given the Court’s duty to safeguard the interests of Minor Plaintiffs, the Court
instructs Plaintiffs Saint Brown and Christine Brown to ensure that the chosen savings
accounts are federally insured, blocked, interest-bearing accounts offering competitive
interest rates. No withdrawal of principal or interest may be made from this account without
a written order from this Court or any court of competent jurisdiction. When the minors
reach the age of 18, the depository is authorized and directed, without further order of this
1 All petitions check a box indicating that “[t]he claimant has recovered completely from the effects of
the injuries described [above], and there are no permanent injuries.” Id. at 6, 28, 50, and 72.
Case 3:23-cv-00567-JES-DDL Document 102 Filed 12/29/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 6

6
23CV567-JES-DDL
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
Court or any other court of competent jurisdiction, to pay by check or transfer directly to
the minors, all funds, including interest, deposited under this Court’s order.
CONCLUSION
After conducting an independent evaluation of the proposed settlement, and
reviewing the Petition for Minors Compromise, ECF No. 99, along with its supporting
documents, the Court finds that the proposed settlement of Minor Plaintiffs’ claims of
$10,000 for each minor with net recoveries of $7,500 for each is fair and reasonable. The
Court RECOMMENDS that District Judge Simmons GRANT the Petition.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Court
and served on all parties within 14 days of the date this order is docketed. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 29, 2025.
2 While the federal statutory scheme provides a 14-day objections period to a Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, the undersigned notes that the petition in this case is unopposed. (See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72; ECF No. 99 at 4). Therefore, if all parties wish to waive the objections period, they should file a
joint stipulation to that effect immediately, to allow the Court to adopt this Report and Recommendation
without further delay. There will be no adverse consequences to any party who files objections or
otherwise chooses not to waive the objection period.
Case 3:23-cv-00567-JES-DDL Document 102 Filed 12/29/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 6