From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 11, 2017
CASE NO. 15cv2087-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2017)

Opinion

CASE NO. 15cv2087-WQH-AGS

07-11-2017

THERESA JONES, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of LANDON JONES, deceased; A.J., a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem, THERESA JONES; H.J., a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem, THERESA JONES; CHRISTINA GIBSON; individually and as Executrix of the Estate of JONATHAN GIBSON, deceased; M.G., a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, CHRISTINA GIBSON; A.G., a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem, CHRISTINA GIBSON, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; GIBBS & COX, INC., a New York Corporation; BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION, a Maine Corporation, Defendants.


ORDER :

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims filed by all Plaintiffs under seal (ECF No. 111) and the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler under seal (1) recommending that the Court approve the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims, and (2) recommending that the Court approve the compromise and settlement of the claims of the Minor Plaintiffs A.J., H.J., M.G., and A.J. as fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the Minor Plaintiffs (ECF No. 114).

I. Background

On September 18, 2015, Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for the deaths of Lieutenant Commander Landon Jones and Chief Warrant Officer 3 Jonathan Gibson. (ECF No. 1). On November 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 9). On May 27, 2016, the Court issued an order granting motions to dismiss filed by Defendants The Prudential Insurance Company of America ("Prudential"), the United States, the United States Department of the Navy, Huntington Ingalls Incorporated ("Huntington"), Gibbs & Cox, Inc. ("Gibbs"), and Bath Iron Works Corporation ("Bath"). (ECF No. 60). On July 19, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint, which is the operative pleading in this matter. (ECF No. 73). On December 2, 2016, the Court issued an order denying motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Iron Works and Gibbs. (ECF No. 96).

On April 25, 2017, Plaintiffs filed under seal the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims filed by all Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 111). On May 9, 2017, Defendants Bath and Gibbs filed a joint statement of non-opposition to the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims. (ECF No. 113).

On June 5, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending that the Court approve the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims. (ECF No. 114). The Magistrate Judge ordered that any objections to the recommendations be submitted by June 19, 2017. The docket reflects that no party has filed an objection to the report and recommendation.

II. Review of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 114)

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. 636(b). The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made" and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court need not review de novo the portions of a report and recommendation to which no party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005), United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

After a review of the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims filed by all Plaintiffs (ECF No. 111) and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 114), the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's determination that the settlement between Plaintiffs and Gibbs and Bath is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Minor Plaintiffs A.J., H.J., M.G., and A.J. See Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011).

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 114) is ADOPTED in its entirety, and (2) the Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims filed by all Plaintiffs (ECF No. 111) is GRANTED. DATED: July 11, 2017

/s/_________

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Jones v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 11, 2017
CASE NO. 15cv2087-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2017)
Case details for

Jones v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy

Case Details

Full title:THERESA JONES, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of LANDON…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 11, 2017

Citations

CASE NO. 15cv2087-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2017)