Yes, but the ruling states that only the father was naturalized prior to his daughter's birth. However, it does not say that her mother was naturalized prior to the time of her daughter's birth.
Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year.
The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414)
“Elg who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here”
That’s plural, and mentioning only the father later does not discount the implied derivative citizenship, given both the law at the time, and the first sentence...