Hughes, et al v. The 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
Civil No. 23-00457 LEK-KJM
Civil No. 24-00059 LEK-KJM
Case 1:24-cv-00059-LEK-KJM Document 300 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

2
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
GRANT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT OF FEINDT AND HUGHES MINORS’ CLAIMS
On February 27, 2026, the plaintiffs in the Feindt and Hughes cases
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion for Approval for Settlement of Feindt and
Hughes Minors’ Claims (“Motion”). ECF No. 683.1 On March 13, 2026, pursuant
to the Court’s request, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of
the Motion. ECF No. 700. On March 20, 2026, Defendant United States of
America (“Defendant”) filed a Response to the Motion. ECF No. 706. On March
23, 2026, pursuant to the Court’s request, Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Supplemental Memorandum in Support of the Motion. ECF No. 711.
On April 1, 2026, the Court held a hearing on the Motion via video
conference. ECF No. 719. Lyle S. Hosoda, Esq., Kristina Baehr, Esq., Frederick
C. Baker, Esq., and Cynthia A. Solomon, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.
Eric A. Rey, Esq., and Alanna Horan, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant.
After carefully considering the parties’ submissions, applicable law, oral
arguments of counsel, and the record in this case, the Court FINDS AND
RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT the Motion for the reasons set
forth below.
1 The Court cites to the Feindt docket, unless otherwise noted.
Case 1:24-cv-00059-LEK-KJM Document 300 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

3
BACKGROUND
This matter is one of a number of cases filed in this district in which the
plaintiffs assert claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) against
the United States arising from the 2021 releases of jet fuel at the Red Hill Bulk
Fuel Storage Facility. The Feindt plaintiffs filed their Complaint in August 2022.
ECF No. 1. The Whaley plaintiffs filed their Complaint in November 2023.
Whaley, ECF No. 1. The Hughes plaintiffs filed their Complaint in February 2024.
Hughes, ECF No. 1. On February 23, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to
consolidate the Feindt, Whaley, and Hughes cases. ECF No. 277. On April 11,
2024, the Court granted the motion to consolidate and consolidated the three cases
for all purposes. ECF No. 413.
The district court conducted a ten-day bench trial for 17 bellwether plaintiffs
beginning on April 29, 2024. ECF No. 633 at 1, 2025 WL 2254119, at *1 (D.
Haw. Aug. 7, 2025). The trial included, among other things, testimony from 20
retained experts, over 650 exhibits, and extensive pre- and post-trial briefing and
other filings.
On May 7, 2025, the district court issued its Preliminary Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law. ECF No. 621, 2025 WL 1348465 (D. Haw. May 7,
2025). On August 7, 2025, the district court issued its Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law (“Final FOF/COL”). ECF No. 633, 2025 WL 2254119
Case 1:24-cv-00059-LEK-KJM Document 300 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

4
(D. Haw. Aug. 7, 2025). In the Final FOF/COL, the district court awarded general
damages for each bellwether plaintiff in amounts ranging from $3,000 to $75,000
“for pain and suffering, and, in the case of some Plaintiffs, emotional distress[.]”
Id. at *61 ¶ 28. In general, the minor bellwether plaintiffs received less than the
adult bellwether plaintiffs. See id. ¶ 29 (awarding plaintiffs T.F. and D.J, both of
whom were under two years of age as of the November 2021 spill, $3,000 to
$5,000 and awarding adult plaintiffs Aubart, Dietz, Feindt, Jessup, and Witt
$37,500 each). The district court also awarded $1,000 in hedonic damages to each
bellwether plaintiff and special damages in varying amounts to five bellwether
plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 30–34.
On February 27, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the Motion. ECF No. 683.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs filed the Motion seeking approval of the settlements for 119 minor
plaintiffs, three minor plaintiffs in the Feindt case and 116 minor plaintiffs in the
Hughes case. “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). “In the context of proposed
Case 1:24-cv-00059-LEK-KJM Document 300 Filed 04/02/26 Page 4 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

5
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.’” Robidoux, 638 F.3d at 1181 (quoting Dacanay v.
Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978)) (citing Salmeron v. United States,
724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that “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”)).
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. To that end, 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.” Id. at 1181–82. “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. at 1182 (citing Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078). “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
Case 1:24-cv-00059-LEK-KJM Document 300 Filed 04/02/26 Page 5 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

6
settlement as proposed by the parties.” Id.
Plaintiffs assert that the minors’ net settlement amounts are calculated by
each minor’s gross settlement amount less expenses, 25% attorneys’ fees pursuant
to the FTCA, and 4.712% Hawaii general excise tax, as follows:
Group 	Gross Settlement
Amount
Net Recovery Amount
Feindt Group 2
(1 minor)
$18,000 	$12,980.98
Feindt Group 3
(1 minor)
$8,000 	$5,598.79
Feindt Group 4
(1 minor)
$5,000 	$3,377.04
Hughes Group 1
(7 minors)
$27,000 	$19,547.04 to $19,623.55
Hughes Group 2
(55 minors)
$18,000 	$12,893.14 to $12,988.07
Hughes Group 3
(36 minors)
$8,000 	$5,478.37 to $5,611.53
Hughes Group 4
(18 minors)
$5,000 	$3,311.86 to $3,389.79
ECF No. 711 at 4–8.
The minors’ recovery is similar to the recovery of the minor plaintiffs in the
Feindt bellwether trial and other cases regarding comparable injuries. See, e.g.,
Feindt, 2025 WL 2254119, at *61; Williams v. United States, Civil No. 23-00028
LEK-KJM, 2025 WL 3712269, at *7 (D. Haw. Dec. 11, 2025), adopted by 2025
WL 3720623 (D. Haw. Dec. 22, 2025); Doe v. Lincoln Military Prop. Mgmt. LP,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00224-GPC-AHG, 2020 WL 5587488, at *2, 6 (S.D. Cal. Sept.
Case 1:24-cv-00059-LEK-KJM Document 300 Filed 04/02/26 Page 6 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

7
18, 2020) (finding minor plaintiffs’ net recovery of $19,793.29 and $1,277.04 for
injuries including exacerbation of autism, wet coughs, eye infections, sinus
infections, lethargy, and shortness of breath, sustained for exposure to black mold
and other toxic chemicals fair and reasonable); Tipton v. Camp Pendleton &
Quantico Housing, LLC, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00167-W-AHG, 2022 WL 5133481, at
*3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2022) (finding minor plaintiffs’ net recoveries of $3,750 for
alleged injuries, including apnea, difficulty breathing, sleep walking, rashes,
behavioral issues, and psychological symptoms, sustained for exposure to black
mold and other toxic chemicals to be fair and reasonable).
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 119 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”).
Case 1:24-cv-00059-LEK-KJM Document 300 Filed 04/02/26 Page 7 of 8
PageID.<pageID>

8
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court FINDS that the settlements for the 119
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. 683).
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 2, 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
Case 1:24-cv-00059-LEK-KJM Document 300 Filed 04/02/26 Page 8 of 8
PageID.<pageID>