Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV26656, Date: 2024-07-02 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: 23STCV26656    Hearing Date: July 2, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

Plaintiffs sue Defendants Voleti Properties LP, Positive Investments Inc., and Does 1 through 50 pursuant to an October 31, 2023, Complaint alleging claims of (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability, (2) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, (3) Negligence, and (4) Breach of Contract.

B. Petition Before the Court

On May 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a petition for approval of a minor’s compromise for settlement of this action as it relates to Plaintiff Ronny Emilio Maldonado, a minor whose guardian ad litem is his parent, Angela Gutierrez, the petitioner.

The petition is unopposed and now before the Court.

II. Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise: GRANTED.

A. Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 372, any compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment made for 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 judgment 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 7.950.5-7.955.) 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 (Judicial Council form MC-350). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) If the Court is satisfied that the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition is in the best interest of the person, then the Court should approve the same. (See Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.)

B. Analysis

1. Procedural Requirements

A review of the petition shows that it meets all the requirements in California Rules of Court, rules 7.950 to 7.955.

a. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950

The petition satisfies California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.

The petition was filed on verified Civil Form MC-350 seeking confirmation of judgment against Defendants on behalf of Ronny Emilio Maldonado. (Petition, p. 10 [Petitioner verification].) The petition also contains a full disclosure of all information that bears upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition. The petition indicates that the total settlement amount among all four Plaintiffs is $80,000. (Petition, p. 3, §§ 10.a., 11.b.(1).) The gross proceeds allocated to Ronny Emilio Maldonado are $5,000. (Petition, p. 3, §§ 10.a.) The net proceeds allocated to Ronny Emilio Maldonado are $3,250.58. (Petition, p. 6, § 15., 16.f.)

b. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.951

The petition satisfies California Rules of Court, rule 7.951.

This requirement provides that where a petitioner 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. (Petition, p. 7, § 17.b.(1)-(3) [Daniel Gibalevich, Esq./Rachel Fishenfeld, Esq., SBN Nos. 217116/270310, DAG Law Firm APC, 12711 Ventura Blvd., Suite 220, Studio City, California 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 petition, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation. (Petition, p. 7, § 17.c. [has not been compensated].)

(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. (Petition, p. 7, § 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, p. 7, § 17.e. [answered “is not” representing another party but Complaint shows that counsel represents all Plaintiffs, not just Ronny Emilio Maldonado].)

(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, p. 7, § 17.f. [expects compensation of $30,000 in compensation through settlement with Defendants].)

(6)  The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney. (Petition, § 17.(2), Attach. 17(a)(2) [retainer agreement].)

c. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.952

The petition satisfies California Rules of Court, rule 7.952.

This is because Plaintiffs (Ronny and his parent) are excused from personally appearing at any hearing in light of good cause dispensing with the need for an appearance.

d. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.953

The petition need not satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 7.953.

This rule provides that, where ordered by the Court, an order for the deposit of funds of a minor or a person with disability with a financial institution must be provided.

Here, the petition does not include a Judicial Council form MC-355, Order to Deposit Money into Blocked Account. (See Petition, §§ 17.(2), 17.(5).) Moreover, the Court has not and does not order an acknowledgment of receipt by any financial institution here.

e. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.954

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.

f. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955

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 fees to be charged from Ronny Emilio Maldonado are $1,250, which is exactly a quarter of the total settlement amount to be paid to Ronny Emilio Maldonado. (Compare Petition, § 16.a., with Petition, § 16.c.)

2. Substantive Requirements

The Court finds that the judgment allocation is in the best interests of Plaintiff Ronny Emilio Maldonado. (See Pearson v. Superior Court, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338.)

Plaintiff Ronny Emilio Maldonado will receive a gross settlement of $5,000 out of the total $80,000 gross settlement for all four Plaintiffs. (Petition, p. 3, 10.a., 11.b.(1).) The remaining part of the judgment collected will be distributed the remaining three plaintiffs (Petition, p. 3, §§ 11(a), 12(b)(3)), where the minors’ parents will receive a gross $70,000 of the $80,000 settlement and are best positioned to use the net proceeds to further the economic welfare and wellbeing of Ronny Emilio Maldonado.

III. Conclusion

Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability [Res ID # 1958] is GRANTED.

The Court signs the concurrently filed proposed order.