Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV24736, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24736    Hearing Date: June 7, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Petition of Petitioner Joanna Simental for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability [regarding Claimant Yecemery Simental]. Petition of Petitioner Joanna Simental for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability [regarding Claimant Keily Ceja]. Petition of Petitioner Juan Antonio Salvador Espino for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability [regarding Claimant Johnny Salvador]. Petition of Petitioner Juan Antonio Salvador Espino for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability [regarding Claimant Aleah Salvador].

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, who were tenants of an apartment at 4923 Wall St., Los Angeles, filed suit against the apartment building owner and manager Mehrdad Enayati, as Trustee of the M E and H M Trust (“Defendant”) for alleged habitability issues. Plaintiffs consist of two parents and their four minor children.

The poor conditions at the apartment reportedly included (1) cockroach infestation, (2) bedbug infestation, (3) rodents infestation, (4) termite infestation, (5) water leaks and plumbing issues, (6) cracks and crevices throughout the units, (7) deteriorating cabinetry, (8) missing or defective smoke or carbon monoxide detector, (9) door frame damage, (10) damaged flooring/tile, (11) plumbing work done without a permit or inspection approval, (12) unapproved construction, (13) defective or non-functioning water heater leaving tenants without water, (14) under floor support unstable or deteriorated, (15) unapproved water heater pressure relief valve, (16) unsecured walkway, (17) defective or non-operatable emergency security bars, (18) peeling paint throughout the unit (bathtub, living room, kitchen, and bedrooms), (19) broken or missing electrical switch plates, (20) missing or torn window screens, and (21) damaged front door locking latch. Complaint, ¶ 19.

Petitioners, who are the parent Plaintiffs and the guardian ad litems of the four minor children, filed petitions requesting Court approval of settlements of four minor claimants who, as Defendant’s tenants, allegedly suffered from uninhabitable conditions leading to bedbug bites 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, subdiv. (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, both Petitioners represent that they 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 Petitioners are acting in the best interests of minors in proposing to obtain approval for the settlement and minors’ compromises.

The Court finds that the proposed settlement amounts of $7,000.00 each, have been typical among the many like cases seen in this court, as to minors who lived in uninhabitable conditions, fully recovered, and required no medical treatment.

Further, attorneys’ fees in the sum of $2,100.00 per claimant, pursuant to a written attorney-client agreement, equals 30 percent of the settlement amount, and would leave a balance of $4,900.00 to be deposited in a financial institution account for withdrawal with court approval. Those sums are also standard and reasonable as to like settlements.

As for the claimants’ potential recovery, the Court has analyzed the supportive merits of Plaintiffs’ allegations, in ruling on a demurrer on 11/10/22.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, all four petitions are granted as prayed. The Court will sign and file proposed orders lodged by the petitioners.