Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV23852, Date: 2024-07-31 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: 23STCV23852    Hearing Date: July 31, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

This action involves a breach of warranty of habitability action brought by tenant Plaintiffs Charlie Jordan, Erika Lopez, and minors, Eliezer Danilo Franco Lopez, and Massieli Adriana Franco Lopez, against Defendants Dikran Keskerian, and Anny Keskerian, as trustees of the Keskerian Family Trust. 

The Complaint alleges that the residential property leased by plaintiffs from defendants was plagued with vermin, insects and rodent infestations, had defective and deteriorated flooring, was improperly maintained, failed to conform to code regulations, did not have operable, clean and sanitary windows and doors, had loose plumbing fixtures, and lacked the required electrical lighting.  Plaintiffs filed their complaint in October of 2023, and the first amended complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (2) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (3) Negligence; and (4) Breach of Contract. 

            On July 1, 2024, Petitioner and Guardian Ad Litem Erika Lopez filed two unopposed Petitions for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action for Minors (the “Petitions”) Eliezer Danilo Franco Lopez and Massieli Adriana Franco Lopez.  The Petitions detail a gross $95,000 Settlement between the Parties, with a distribution of $60,000 to Charlie Jordan, and $25,000 to Erika Lopez, and $5,000 for each of Claimant, and a final net settlement of $3,438.35 for each Claimant. 

 Petitions 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 submits a verified Civil Form MC-350 seeking approval of a settlement between Defendants and Claimants.  (See Petitions, p. 10 [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 $95,000 in gross settlement funds to be distributed to Plaintiffs.  (Petitions, ¶¶ 11, 12.)  Plaintiffs Jordan and Lopez are set to receive gross settlements of $60,000 and $25,000, respectively.  (Petitions, Attach. 12.)  Claimants are each to receive a gross settlement of $5,000 and net compromise of $3,438.35.  (Petitions, ¶ 17(f), Attach. 12.)  The remaining $1,250 of the Claimants’ net settlement will be used to pay attorney’s fees, and $311.65 will be used for costs.  (Petitions, ¶ 17(c), 17(e); see also Petitions, ¶ 14(b).)

            The Petitions satisfy 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 Petitions contain as follows: 

(1) The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney.  (Petitions, ¶¿17(b)(1)-(3) [Daniel Gibalevich/Rachel Fishenfeld, 217116/270310, DAG LAW FIRM APC 12711 Ventura Blvd., Suite 220, Studio City, CA 91604].) 

(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 Petitions, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation.  (Petitions, ¶¿17(c) [has not]). 

(3) Whether the attorney became involved with the Petitions, directly or indirectly, at the instance of any party against whom the claim is asserted or of any party’s insurance carrier.  (Petitions, ¶¿17(d) [did not so become involved]). 

(4) Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter.  (Petition ¶¿17(e), Attach. 18(e) [is representing another party, i.e., both Macias-Vasquez Children and their parents, Plaintiffs Claudia Macias and Omar Vasquez]). 

(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 Petitions, 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.  (Petitions, ¶¿17(f), is being compensated by another party, i.e., Defendants in the amount of $35,250.]). 

(6) The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney.  (Petitions, Attach. 17a(2) [Attorney-Client Retainer Agreement].) 

The Guardian Ad Litem Petitioner and Plaintiffs satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 7.952.  The Court presumes the Guardian will attend the hearing, and Claimants are excused for good cause given academic timing restrictions and their ages, i.e., eleven (11) years old (Massieli) and (14) years old (Eliezer).

The Petitions need not satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 7.953 as the net settlement is being delivered to the parent.

            The Petitions 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 Petitions generally.) 

            The Petitions satisfy 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 Petitions contain a Declaration from Rachel Fishenfeld, Esq.—the attorney who represents Plaintiffs—indicating that Claimants will be paying 25% of their $5,000 gross settlements—i.e., $1,250—toward legal services.  (Petitions, Attach. 13(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 Claimants.  (See Pearson, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338.)  Claimants will each receive a gross settlement of $3,438.35, to be held by the parent in trust.  The remaining $85,000 of the Settlement will be distributed to their parents, who are best positioned to care for their children and can use the remaining proceeds of the Settlement to further the economic welfare and physical wellbeing of Claimants.

Conclusion: Accordingly, the Petitions for Approval of Compromise are GRANTED.  

Conclusion 

Petitioner’s Petitions for Approval of Compromise for Minor on behalf of Claimants are GRANTED because the Petitions meet 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 Claimants.