Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV09833, Date: 2024-07-10 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 22STCV09833    Hearing Date: July 10, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

The named Plaintiffs bring this breach of habitability suit against their landlords or former landlords—Defendants R.E.C. Development, Inc. and LAN—based on allegations that the Defendants rented to the Plaintiffs four different rental units with numerous alternate uninhabitable conditions and that the Defendants failed—despite numerous complaints by the Plaintiffs—to remediate these conditions in the Plaintiffs’ respective rental units, all located at 22307 Kent Avenue, Torrance, CA 90505 (“Subject Premises”).  These conditions include(d): cockroach and rodent infestations; lack of adequate control of infestations; resulting health problems to tenants; water leaks and intrusion; toxic mold causing mold spores to float in the air and be inhaled by plaintiffs; holes and cracks in the ceilings and/or interior walls; damaged and deteriorated carpeting/flooring; inoperable heating; lack of air conditioning; lack of sanitary plumbing; lack of fixtures in bathrooms; inoperable stoves or ovens; broken kitchen cabinets; an unsanitary and unsafe pool; and extensive trash strewn across the common areas. 

On May 21, 2024, Guardian Ad Litem Maria Fredholm filed with the Court an unopposed Expedited Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability (the “Petition”) in favor of Plaintiff Pelestene Fredholm. The Petition details a gross $50,000.00 Settlement between the Parties, with a distribution of gross distribution $45,100.00 to each Maria Fredholm and $4,900.00 for Pelestene Fredholm, and a final net settlement of $3,551.41 for Pelestene Fredholm. 

Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise for Minor or Person with Disability: GRANTED

Legal Standard: Under Code of Civil Procedure section 372, any settlement of a claim made by a minor or adult with a disability must be approved by the Court.  (See also Prob. Code § 3600, subd. (b) [a compromise or covenant for a disputed claim or damages, money, or other property of a minor or person who lacks legal capacity is valid only after it has been approved by the superior court].) ¿A petition for court approval of a compromise of a minor or disabled adult’s compromise or settlement of a pending action or proceeding to which this person is a party must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rules 7.951-52.)  The petition is generally submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability (form MC-350).  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)  If the Court is satisfied that the settlement is in the best interest of the¿person, then the Court should approve the settlement.¿¿(See Pearson v. Superior Ct.¿(2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.)¿¿¿¿

Procedural Requirements: A review of the instant Petition shows that it meets the requirements of California Rules of Court, rules 7.950 to 7.955.

The Petitions satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.  Petitioner Maria Fredholm submits a verified Civil Form MC-350EX seeking a settlement between R.E.C. Development, Inc. also known as Real Estate Connection (“R.E.C., Development, Inc.”) and Pelestene Fredholm. (See Petition, p. 7 [Petitioner verification].)  Further, the Petition contains a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition, in satisfaction of California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.  The Petition details $50,000.00 in gross settlement funds to be distributed to the Fredholm family.  (Petition, ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff Maria Fredholm is set to receive the gross settlement of $45,100.00.  (Petition, Attach. 12.)  Pelestene Fredholm is set to receive a gross settlement of $4,900.00 and net compromise of $3,551.41.  (Petition, ¶ 17(f), Attach. 12; Attach. 19(b)(4).)  Additionally, $1,225.00 of the Pelestene Fredholm’s net settlement will be used to pay attorney’s fees.  (Petition, ¶ 17(c), 14(a).) Moreover, the remaining $123.59 will be used to pay the expenses which include mediation and filing fees. (Petition 17(e), see also Ohn Decl. ¶ 8 [“limiting its cost reimbursement request as to the Minor Plaintiff in the amount of $123.59”].)

The Petition satisfies California Rules of Court, rule 7.951.  This requirement provides that where a petitioner that has been represented or assisted by an attorney in preparing the petition to compromise the claim or in any other respect with regard to the claim, the petition must disclose specific information, which the Petition contains as follows:

(1) The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney. (Ohn Decl. p.1) [Gerald S. Ohn, SBN 217382, The Law  Offices of Gerald S. Ohn, APC, 800 South Figueroa Street, Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90017].)

(2) Whether the attorney has received any attorney’s fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the Petition, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation.  (Petition, ¶ 18(b) [has not nor expects to receive]).

(3) Whether the attorney became involved with the Petition, directly or indirectly, at the instance of any party against whom the claim is asserted or of any party’s insurance carrier.  (N/A).

(4) Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter.  (Petition ¶ 18(a), Attach. 18(a) [is representing another party, i.e., all of the plaintiffs in this action which is the subject of this Petition]).

(5) If the attorney has not received any attorney’s fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the Petition, whether the attorney expects to receive any fees or other compensation for these services, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who is expected to pay the fees or other compensation.  (Petition, ¶ 17(d), Ohn Decl. ¶ 8) [is not being compensated by another party]).)

(6) The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney.  (Petition, Attach. 14(a) [Redacted Attorney-Client Retainer Agreement].)

The Guardian Ad Litem Petitioner and Plaintiff satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 7.952. 

The Petition states that $3,551.41 be paid or delivered to a parent of the minor on the terms and under the conditions specified in Probate Code sections 3401-3402, without bond. The name of the parent is MARIA FREDHOLM and her current address is P.O. Box 1783 Lynwood, CA 90262. Thus, a separate check in the amount of $3,551.41 shall be issued to Petitioner and parent MARIA FREDHOLM. (Petition Attach. 19b(4).)

The Petition need not satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 7.954.  This rule provides the requirements for requesting the withdrawal of funds already deposited in favor of a minor or person with a disability pursuant to a prior compromise, which is not the case here.  (See Petition generally.)

The Petition satisfies California Rules of Court, rule 7.955.  This rule requires that the Court determine whether the attorney’s fees charged of a minor or a person with a disability are reasonable.  Here, the Petition contains a Declaration from Gerald S. Ohn, Esq.—the attorney who represents the Plaintiffs—indicating that Pelestene Fredholm will be paying 25% of their $4,900.00 gross settlement—i.e., $1,225.00—toward Mr. Ohn’s legal services.  (Petition, Attach. 14(a).)  The Court finds that a 25% recovery for the type of action at bar is reasonable.

Substantive Requirements: The Court finds that the settlement is in the best interests of Pelestene Fredholm.  (See Pearson, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338.)  Pelestene Fredholm will receive $4,900.00 of which $1,348.59 will be used for attorney’s fees and costs. The remainding $3,551.41 will be paid or delivered to a parent of the minor on the terms and under the conditions specified in Probate Code sections 3401-3402, without bond. Thus, a separate check in the amount of $3,551.41 shall be issued to Petitioner and parent MARIA FREDHOLM. (Petition Attach. 19b(4).) The remaining $45,100.00 of the Settlement will be distributed to her parent, Maria Fredholm is in the best position to care for her children and can use the remaining proceeds of the Settlement to further the economic welfare and physical wellbeing of Pelestene Fredholm.

Conclusion: Accordingly, the Expedited Petition for Approval of Compromise is GRANTED.

Conclusion 

Guardian Ad Litem Maria Fredholm’s Petition for Approval of Compromise for Minor or Adult with Disability on behalf of Pelestene Fredholm is GRANTED because the Petition meets all requirements set forth in California Rules of Court rules 7.590 to 7.595 and the Court is satisfied that the Settlement is in the best interests of Plaintiff Pelestene Fredholm.