Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV00035, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00035    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Petitions of Petitioner Charquinta Ochoa for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceedings of Judgment for Minors Nevaeh Ochoa and Nyla Ochoa.

Petitioner’s Petitions for Minor Compromise are denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Charquinta Ochoa, Nevaeh Ochoa (age 11), and Nyla Ochoa (age 9), filed this action against Francisco Navarrete, Khaleia Felix, Jason Felix, Jarod Felix, Tamira Felix, Lanaira Thomas, Wardell Wells, Wilbur Scott, and Roxann Felix. (“Defendants”), alleging habitability issues.

Petitioner, Charquinta Ochoa, who is the mother and guardian ad litem of the minor Plaintiffs, filed petitions requesting Court approval of settlements of the two minor claimants who, as Defendants’ tenants, allegedly suffered from uninhabitable conditions and emotional distress.

LEGAL STANDARD

Courts must decide whether to approve a compromise by determining if petitioners, such as guardians, are acting in the best interests of minors. E.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 372, subd. (a); Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1603-1607. “[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors, [is] a role to assure that whatever is done is in the minor's best interests…. [I]ts primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor's injuries, care and treatment.”  Goldberg v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382. Judicial discretion in approving petitions for minors’ compromises, and ordering distributions, and local court policies, must be applied in the best interests of minors, in a case-by-case method, tailored to the circumstances. Christensen v. Superior Court (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 139, 142-144.

A petition for court approval of a compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court rules 7.950, 7.951, and 7.952. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1384(a). Some of the Probate Code and the Code of Civil Procedure apply to compromises as to minors’ claims. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950. In large part, the Local Rules incorporate by reference the California Rules of Court and statutory provisions. See Super. Ct. LA County, Local Rules, rule 4.115 et seq.

A payment of attorneys’ fees on the minor’s behalf must be approved as being reasonable by the court. Niles v. City of San Rafael (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 230, 244. “The trial court itself must develop and resolve any counterarguments on behalf of the minor, lest the attorney receive an excessive award of fees.” Gonzalez v. Chen (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 881, 887.

ANALYSIS

The proposed settlement is for $135,000, of which $134,000.00 is to be paid to Petitioner Charquinta Ochoa, and each minor plaintiff is to receive $500.00. The Court finds that the minors’ share of the settlement, which is less than 0.4% of the share received by Petitioner, is not reasonable and fails to adequately compensate them. The proposed settlement is not typical of the many similar cases seen in this court of minors who have lived in unhabitable conditions and suffered emotional distress but who did not require medical treatment.

In her declaration, Petitioner submits that the proportionally smaller recovery for the minor petitioners is justified by the fact that much of the settlement proceeds are intended to cover rent paid and out-of-pocket expenses. Declaration of Charquinta Ochoa ¶ 4. However, as provided in the Complaint, the rent was $750 per month. Complaint ¶ 20. Based on the seven-year period between 2015-2022, identified in the petitions as the date the incident occurred, rent payments amounted to approximately $63,000. Petitions at ¶ 4. Petitioner provides no basis for the Court to conclude that out-of-pocket expenses totaled $71,000.00. Moreover, while it is typical in habitability cases for the adult, rent-paying plaintiffs to recover more, it is not typical for the settlement to so drastically undervalue the minor plaintiffs’ non-economic claims.

The Court recognizes that Petitioner will not receive the full $134,000.00, as a significant portion of that recovery will go to attorney’s fees. However, the appropriate method for accounting for the minors’ share of attorney fees is to request attorney’s fees as part of the petition. While Petitioner and Plaintiffs’ counsel are free to agree to pay the minors’ attorney’s fees out of Petitioner’s share of the recovery, they may not do so by preemptively reducing the share of the settlement to which the minors are reasonably entitled. In doing so, they prevent the Court from fulfilling its statutorily required duty of ensuring that the attorney’s fees deducted from the minors’ settlement are reasonable. Further, this arrangement prevents the Court from approving the petitions but reducing the fee award.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the settlement is not reasonable, and petitions are denied.

CONCLUSION

The Petitions to Confirm Minor’s Compromise are denied.