CLAY
v.
IH4 PROPERTY FLORIDA, L.P.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court approved the settlement of a minor's personal injury claim, finding it fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the minor's best interests.
Plaintiffs alleged mold and water damage from a hurricane caused their minor son physical injuries and required alternate housing. The parties reached…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fairness, Adequacy, And Reasonableness Of Settlement cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is the Renewed Agreed Petition for Order Authorizing Settlement of Minor’s Personal Injury Claim (Doc. 62). Plaintiffs represent Defendants do not oppose and consent to the settlement of this action. The parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge for all proceedings. (See Doc. 64). In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Grace Clay and Stephen Clay, individually and on behalf of their minor son S.C. allege they rented real property owned or controlled by Defendants IH4 Property Florida, L.P. and Invitation Homes Realty, L.L.C. (Doc. 11, § 1). Plaintiffs claim Hurricane Irma damaged the roof of the home and water or moisture intruded. (Id., § 21). Over time, mold grew and was exacerbated by subsequent storm events. (Id., § 24). From the toxic mold, Plaintiffs claim they suffered physical injuries and required alternate housing. (Id., §§ 25-27). As theories of recovery, the complaint advances claims based on federal and Florida
law. (Doc. 11, ¶¶ 35-65). The parties settled this action on December 3, 2020, and now seek Court approval of the minor’s claims. (Docs. 56, 62).1 For a federal court to approve a
settlement, “‘the cardinal rule is that the District Court must find that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable and is not the product of collusion between the parties.’” In re Smith, 926 F. 2d 1027, 1029 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). And under Florida law, the Court must determine whether the settlement is in the best
interests of the minor. Meyers v. United States, No. 6:13-CV-1555-ORL, 2014 WL 5038585, *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2014). As discussed below, the Court finds the parties have met both standards.
The parties agree the settlement terms are fair, adequate, and reasonable. (Doc. 62, p. 3). After consultation with counsel, Stephen and Grace Clay believe the settlement terms are reasonable, prudent and in the best interests of their minor son. (Id., p. 3). In support, Plaintiffs assert this action was a landlord/tenant dispute
regarding damages, including mainly out-of-pocket expenses, suffered from the
Lida Ee La ell.