Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 22STCV18090, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV18090, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18090 Hearing Date: March 18, 2024 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Petition of JOSE GARCIA for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability.

BACKGROUND

In this case, Plaintiffs seek damages against Defendants MOGA 1967, LP and SWAMI International, Inc., related to habitability issues in Plaintiffs’ home. In January 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement of the case. Plaintiff Jose Garcia, as guardian ad litem of three-year old Plaintiff Josiah Garcia, filed a petition requesting approval of a $15,000 settlement as to Josiah Garcia.

LEGAL STANDARD

Courts considering whether to approve a minor’s compromise determine whether petitioners, such as guardians, are acting in the best interests of the minor. Code Civ. Proc. §372(a)(3); Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1603-07. “[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. Sup. Ct. (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. Sup. Ct. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 139, 142-44.

ANALYSIS

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.

Here, the Court cannot rule on the petition because the Petitioner did not fill out all the required parts of the mandatory petition. Specifically, the Petitioner did not address item 8, regarding the current state of any injuries of the minor. See CRC Rule 7.950(4). Whether the minor has, or does not have, ongoing injuries, is a major factor in ascertaining whether the settlement amount is in the best interests of the minor. If the minor has fully recovered, then $15,000 is a fair settlement for the reported suffering, and the Court would grant the petition. That amount is comparable to many other similar habitability case settlements seen in the court, a three-year-old minor who suffered fright, annoyance, asthma symptoms, fear, nervousness, recurring anxiety, discomfort and embarrassment.

Courts may order that funds to be received by a minor must be deposited in a financial institution. CRC Rule 7.953(a). Per item 18(b) on the mandatory petition, Petitioner must include attachment 18(b)(2) with the name, branch, and address of the financial institution where the balance of the settlement (after deducting the attorney’s fees and costs) will be deposited. Currently, the petition does not contain such information.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court cannot grant the petition submitted by the Petitioner. The parties are back in Department 55 on 3/21/24 for the OSC re Dismissal (Settlement). If Petitioner submits a revised petition at or before the 3/21/24 OSC, with a proof of service showing electronic service of such revised petition on Defendants, the Court will consider the revised petition at the OSC hearing.