Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV15596, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV15596 Hearing Date: September 4, 2024 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Petition of Petitioner Teresa Pelico for
Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceedings of
Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability [regarding Pedro Jacobo
Paxtor-Pelico]. Petition of Petitioner Teresa Pelico for Approval of Compromise
of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceedings of Judgment for Minor or
Person with a Disability [regarding Emelin Raquel Paxtor-Pelico].
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, who were tenants of an apartment at
2845
San Marino St. Los Angeles, CA 90006, filed suit against the apartment building
owners and managers, Defendants RCG 2845 SAN MARINO LLC
and RCG SOCAL LLC, for alleged habitability issues. Plaintiffs consist of two
separate families occupying respective units; two adults in one unit, three
adults and two minor children in the other.
Petitioner, Teresa Pelico,
who is one of the adult Plaintiffs and the mother and guardian ad litem of the
two minor Plaintiffs, filed petitions requesting Court approval of settlements
of two minor claimants 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 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 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 $2,500.00 for each minor ($18,000 per adult), 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, attorney’s fees of $650 per claimant, reflecting
25 percent of the recovery and pursuant to a written attorney-client fee
agreement, are reasonable.[1] Additionally, expenses
advanced by claimants’ attorney, consisting of an $87.09 filing fee and an
$85.58 service fee, are reasonable and would leave a balance of $1,702.33. Those sums are also standard and reasonable as
to like settlements.
Petitioner seeks to have the funds paid to her, as the
claimants’ mother, under Probate Code section 3611 subdivision (e), which allows
such funds to “be paid or delivered to a parent of the minor, without bond,
upon the terms and under the conditions specified in Article 1 (commencing with
Section 3400) of Chapter 2.”
Probate Code section 3401 allows for a parent to
receive money belonging to their minor children, for the purpose of holding the
money in trust until the child reaches adulthood. However, that provision only applies when “(1)
The total estate of the minor, including the money and other property to be
paid or delivered to the parent, does not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000)
in value” and (2) “The parent to whom the money or other property is to be paid
or delivered gives the person making the payment or delivery written assurance,
verified by the oath of such parent, that the total estate of the minor,
including the money or other property to be paid or delivered to the parent,
does not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) in value.” Prob. Code § 3401, subd. (c).
The petitions are supported by a declaration of Teresa
Pelico, in which she affirms under oath that each minor’s total estate does not
exceed $5,000 and that she will hold the funds in trust for each minor until the
minor reaches majority.
This declaration is sufficient to satisfy the
requirements of Probate Code section 3401, subdivision (c).
CONCLUSION
Therefore, both petitions are granted as prayed. The
Court will sign and file proposed orders lodged by the petitioner.