Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV23653, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV23653 Hearing Date: May 1, 2025 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Petition of
Petitioner Izabela Tzep Tzaj for Approval
of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceedings of Judgment for
Minor Nathaly Isabel Sac-Tzep.
Petitioner’s Petition for Minor Compromise is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Leo Gonzalez Carlos
Barrera, Alejandro Lopez, Fernando Castellon, Gloria Escobar, Jose Valdez,
Carlos Lopez, Carlos Ramos, Jose Zelaya, Estanislao Guillen Gomez, Gloria
Lopez, Jose Guevarra, Yolanda De Paredes, Izabela Tzep Tzaj. Francisco Sac
Guarchaj, Angelica Sac-Tzep, Joel Sac-Tzep, a minor by and through his guardian
ad litem Izabela Tzep Tzaj, Jenny Sac-Tzep. a minor by and through her guardian
ad litem Izabela Tzep Tzaj; Nathaly Sac-Tzep, a minor by and through her
guardian ad litem Izabela Tzep Tzaj, who were tenants of an apartment
building, filed this action against Linda V.
Armor as Trustee of the Armor Family Trust RI III Apartments LLC, RH Centennial Apartments LLC, and Taylor Equities
17 LLC, alleging habitability issues. Plaintiffs consist of sixteen
adults and three minors.
Petitioner, Izabela Tzep Tzaj,
one of the adult Plaintiffs and the parent and guardian ad litem of the minor Plaintiff,
petitions the Court to approve the settlement of Nathaly Isabel Sac-Tzep’s claims.
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
In advocating settlement approvals, the Petitioner
represents that she made a careful and diligent inquiry and investigation into
the facts and circumstances, the responsibility, and the claimants’ injuries.
Here, the Court finds that the Petitioner is acting in the minor's
best interests in proposing to obtain approval for the settlement and minor’s compromise.
The Court finds that the proposed settlement amounts, $50,441.17
for the minor and $50,441.18 each for the other Plaintiffs, are within the
reasonable range of outcomes based on similar cases seen in this court, as to
minors who lived in uninhabitable conditions, fully recovered, and required no
medical treatment.
Further, the minor’s attorney’s fees of $12,610.29,
reflecting 25 percent of the recovery and pursuant to a written attorney-client
fee agreement, are reasonable.
Petitioner intends to disburse fees as described above and
deposit the remaining balance of $37,830.87 in a blocked account. Petitioners
properly included the name, branch, and address of the financial institution
where the funds will be deposited in attachment 18b(2). Accordingly, the
Petition is granted.
CONCLUSION
The Petition for Approval of Minor's Compromise is granted.