NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Petitions of Petitioner Maria Guadalupe Guzman Estrada for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceedings of Judgment for Minors Britannie Mendez, Ashley Mendez, Benito Guzman, Adriana Guzman, Alejandra Guzman, and Julian Antonio.

Petitioner’s Petitions for Minor Compromise are granted.

 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Fortino Antonio Morales; Maria Guadalupe Guzman Estrada; Britannie Mendez, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Maria Guadalupe Guzman Estrada; Benito Guzman, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Maria Guadalupe Guzman Estrada; Ashley Mendez, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Maria Guadalupe Guzman Estrada; Adrian Guzman, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, who were tenants of an apartment building, filed this action against Cherry Shopping LLC MCP Burbank Center LLC, and Urban Neighborhood Los Angeles MB Facility LLC, alleging habitability issues. Plaintiffs consist of two adults and six minors.

Petitioner, Maria Guadalupe Guzman Estrada, who is one of the adult Plaintiffs and the parent and guardian ad litem of the minor Plaintiffs, filed petitions requesting Court approval of settlements of the six minor claimants who, as Defendants’ tenants, allegedly suffered from uninhabitable conditions and emotional distress. The motions now before the Court are Petitioner’s Petitions for Minor Compromise.

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.

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. Unless the court has approved the fee agreement in advance, the court must use a reasonable fee standard when approving and allowing the amount of attorney’s fees payable from money or property paid or to be paid for the benefit of a minor or a person with a disability. Cal Rules of Court, rule 7.955 (a)(1). The court must give consideration to the terms of the agreement between the attorney and minor’s representative and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made. Cal Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b)(2) sets out nonexclusive factors the court may consider in determining the reasonableness of attorney’s fees in connection with a petition for minor’s compromise. The petition must include a declaration by the attorney addressing the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b)(2) that are applicable to the matter that is before the Court. Cal Rules of Court, rule 7.955(c).

 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs agreed to settle their claims against Cherry Shopping LLC and MCP Burbank Center LLC in exchange for a settlement of $575,000. Plaintiffs separately agreed to settle their claims against Urban Neighborhood Los Angeles Facility LLC in exchange for $579,999.96. Petitioner requests approval of both settlement agreements as to each minor.

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.

The Court finds that the Petitioner is acting in the best interests of the minors in proposing to obtain approval for the settlement and minors’ compromises.

I. Cherry Shopping LLC and MCP Burbank Center LLC Settlement

The Court finds that the proposed settlement amounts of $20,000 for each minor and $227,500.00 per adult are typical among the many similar cases seen in this court, as to minors who lived in uninhabitable conditions, fully recovered, and required no medical treatment.

Petitioner requests attorney’s fees of $5,000 per minor, reflecting 25 percent of the recovery. The petitions include the required declarations from the attorney addressing the factors listed in the California Rules of Court, Rule 7.955. (b). Based on these declarations, the Court concludes that the requested attorney fees are reasonable and comparable to those in similar settlements.

Petitioner intends to disburse fees as described above and deposit the remaining balance of $15,000 per minor in blocked accounts until the minors come of age. Petitioner properly included the name, branch, and address of the financial institution where the funds will be deposited as attachment 18b(2) to each of the petitions. Accordingly, the Petitions are granted.

II. Urban Neighborhood Los Angeles Facility LLC Settlement

The Court finds that the proposed settlement amounts of $20,000 for each minor and $229,999.98 per adult are typical among the many similar cases seen in this court, as to minors who lived in uninhabitable conditions, fully recovered, and required no medical treatment.

Further, attorney’s fees of $4,875.39 per minor, reflecting approximately 25 percent of the recovery. The petitions include the required declarations from the attorney addressing the factors listed in the California Rules of Court, Rule 7.955. (b). Based on these declarations, the Court concludes that the requested attorney fees are reasonable and comparable to those in similar settlements. and pursuant to a written attorney-client fee agreement, are reasonable. Additionally, expenses advanced by the minors’ attorney, consisting of $498.46 per minor, are reasonable and would leave a balance of $14,626.15. Those sums are also standard and reasonable, and comparable to similar settlements.

Petitioner intends to disburse fees as described above and deposit the remaining balance in blocked accounts. Petitioner properly included the name, branch, and address of the financial institution where the funds will be deposited as attachment 18b(2).

Accordingly, the Petitions are granted.

CONCLUSION

The Court grants all 12 Petitions for Minor’s Compromise. The Court will sign and file proposed orders lodged by Petitioner.