Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 23STCV08520, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV08520, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08520 Hearing Date: October 3, 2024 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Petition of Petitioner Luis Fernando Castro for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceedings of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability [regarding Katherine Castro]. Petition of Petitioner Luis Fernando Castro for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceedings of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability [regarding Fernanda Castro Quijada].

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, Luis Fernando Castro, Elsy M. Quijada De Castro, Erik A. C. Castro, Katherine Castro (16 years old), and Fernanda Castro Quijada (2 years old), tenants of an apartment at 6939 Hazeltine Avenue #9, Van Nuys, CA 91405, brought this action against the apartment building owner/manager, Defendant K A J Group #4 LLC, for alleged habitability issues. Petitioner, Luis Fernando Castro, the father and guardian ad litem of minor Plaintiffs, filed petitions requesting Court approval of settlements for his minor children 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

In advocating settlement approvals, the Petitioner represents that he 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 best interests of the minors in proposing to obtain approval for the settlement and minors’ compromises.

The Court finds that the proposed settlement amounts of $5,000 for Katherine Castro and $2,500 for Fernanda Castro Quijada are 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, attorney’s fees of $1,250 from Katherine Castro and $650 from Fernanda Castro Quijada, reflecting 25 percent of the recovery and pursuant to a written attorney-client fee agreement, are reasonable.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, both petitions are granted as requested. The Court will sign and file proposed orders filed by the petitioner. Petitioner must also submit a filled-out Order to Deposit Funds into Blocked Account (MC-355) for each claimant for the Court to sign.

Plaintiff to give notice.