Briana Leakas v. Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:22-cv-01422
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Briana Leakas v. Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC, Judge DeMarchi approved D.L.’s minor-settlement petition and ordered protected deposit of the undisclosed payment.
The order directly affected D.L., the minor plaintiff whose settlement required court approval, and his parents or representatives, Briana and Theodore Leakas, who were responsible for depositing and protecting the funds. It also affected the defendants by approving the settlement of D.L.’s claims. The opinion does not disclose the settlement amounts.
What happened
In Briana Leakas v. Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC, Briana Leakas and her minor son, D.L., claimed injuries from toxic mold in a home they leased from the defendants. The parties settled the case before trial, and the plaintiffs asked the court to approve the part of the settlement belonging to D.L.
The opinion does not disclose the total settlement or D.L.’s allocated amount. It states that D.L. had temporary symptoms, recovered completely, had no permanent injuries, and needed no continuing medical care. No fees or costs would be taken from his share, and the defendants did not oppose approval.
Judge DeMarchi granted the petition, finding D.L.’s settlement fair and reasonable. The court ordered the payment to be deposited in an account held in trust for D.L., with withdrawal allowed only by D.L. after he reaches adulthood and receives court authorization.
The detailed version
- Briana Leakas v. Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC · No. 5:22-cv-01422
- Virginia Demarchi
- Apr. 17, 2024
Background
Briana Leakas and her minor son, D.L., sued Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC, and other defendants over personal injuries they claimed resulted from toxic mold contamination in the home they leased while living on the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey from about June 2019 through May 2020. Theodore Leakas, Briana Leakas’s spouse and D.L.’s guardian ad litem, was also involved in the case.
The amended complaint asserted ten state and common-law claims: negligence, nuisance, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, breach of the implied covenant of quiet use and enjoyment, gross negligence, premises liability, constructive eviction, and fraud by concealment.
The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement shortly before the scheduled jury trial. The plaintiffs then petitioned for approval of the settlement of D.L.’s claims. The opinion’s text redacts the total settlement and the amount allocated to D.L. It states that no fees or costs would be deducted from D.L.’s share. The defendants did not oppose the petition, and the court vacated the scheduled hearing.
Legal standard
Because D.L. is a minor, the court had a special duty under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) to protect his interests. The court therefore independently reviewed whether the settlement served his best interests. It focused on whether D.L.’s net recovery was fair and reasonable considering the case’s facts, his specific claims, and recoveries in similar cases. California law also requires court approval of settlements involving minors.
Court’s analysis
The court found the settlement of D.L.’s claims fair and reasonable. The plaintiffs stated that D.L. had experienced some symptoms that may have been caused or worsened by the property’s condition, but they also reported that the symptoms were temporary, that he had fully recovered, and that he had no permanent injuries or need for continuing medical treatment.
The court also approved the proposed method for handling D.L.’s funds. The payment would be given to Theodore Leakas for deposit into an account in trust for D.L. The funds could be withdrawn only by D.L. after reaching adulthood and with authorization from the court. The court found that this procedure complied with the California Probate Code because the record showed that D.L.’s estate was worth less than $5,000.
Disposition
The court granted the plaintiffs’ petition to approve the settlement of D.L.’s claims. It ordered the undisclosed settlement amount allocated to D.L. to be paid to Theodore Leakas for deposit into an account in trust for D.L., subject to the stated withdrawal restrictions. The parties were also ordered to file a joint status report by April 24, 2024, stating when they expected to file a stipulation for dismissal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.