Judge Armen Tamzarian, Case Number: 23STCV06798, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV06798, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06798 Hearing Date: November 21, 2024 Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Petitions for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action for Minors Ashairel Aguirre, Axel Aguirre, and Fredy Aguirre

Plaintiff Anairel Diaz petitions for approval of the compromise of this action on behalf of her minor children, Ashairel Aguirre, Axel Aguirre, and Fredy Aguirre. Plaintiff Anairel Diaz shows a reasonable compromise of the action on behalf of the minors. The court, however, will deny the petitions without prejudice for two reasons.

1. Distribution of Funds

For the manner of distributing funds to each minor claimant, the petitions elected that “the money be held on any conditions the court determines are in the best interest of the minor.” (Petitions, ¶ 18.b(8).) This option only applies when “the money of the guardianship estate does not exceed twenty thousand dollars ($20,000).” (Prob. Code, § 3413, subd. (c).) The settlement provides for paying minor Fredy Aguirre $24,000. Plaintiff cannot use this manner of distribution for him.

Moreover, on attachment 18.b(8), the petitions state, “To be paid or delivered to a parent of the minor on the terms the court determines to be in the best interest of the minor or adult person with a disability.” (Petitions, p. 12.) Probate Code section 3401, provides that “money or other property belonging to the minor may be paid or delivered to a parent of the minor entitled to the custody of the minor to be held in trust for the minor until the minor reaches majority” only if “[t]he 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).” (Id., subds. (a) & (c)(2).) Minors Ashairel Aguirre and Axel Aguirre will each receive a balance of $8,000. As stated above, minor Fredy Aguirre will receive a balance of $24,000. Plaintiff cannot use this method of distribution for any of the three minors.

2. Proposed Orders

Plaintiff also did not submit proposed orders approving the compromises on mandatory Judicial Council form MC-351.

Disposition

Plaintiff Anairel Diaz’s three petitions for approval of compromise of this action are denied without prejudice. Plaintiff must file amended petitions that choose a permitted manner of distributing the funds (¶ 18.b) and must submit proposed orders on Judicial Council form MC-351 for each amended petition. If necessary, plaintiff must also submit any additional proposed orders as required for the chosen manner of distribution. (E.g., Judicial Council form MC-355, order to deposit funds in blocked account.)

Tentative Ruling:

Defendants Judith Sixtos and Jesus Sixtos’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Defendants Judith Sixtos and Jesus Sixtos move for an order determining good faith settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a). When only some of multiple defendants alleged to be jointly liable settle a case, the settling parties may apply to the court for a determination of good faith settlement. (Ibid.) A determination of good faith “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (Id., subd. (c).)

The settling defendants have shown proof of service on all parties who have appeared in this action.

The court finds the settlement was made in good faith. In making such a determination, the court must various factors stated in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500. “ ‘Good faith may be found only if there has been no collusion between the settling parties and where the settlement amount appears to be within the “reasonable range” of the settling party’s proportionate share of comparative liability for a plaintiff’s injuries.’ ” (Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 865, 872.)

The settlement represents a fair compromise of this a landlord/tenant dispute. The settling defendants agreed to pay plaintiffs $125,000. Plaintiffs allege Judith Sixtos and Jesus Sixtos sold the property “within the last couple of years” before filing this action in March 2023. (Comp., ¶ 49.) They further allege, “On March 29, 2021, Plaintiffs received a letter from Defendant Saul Diaz ‘introducing himself as the new owner of the building.’ ” (¶ 28.) Selling the building two years before plaintiffs filed this action significantly reduces Judith Sixtos and Jesus Sixtos’s proportionate share of liability.

No other defendant has asserted a lack of good faith or presented any evidence. “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

Disposition

Defendants Judith Sixtos and Jesus Sixtos’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is granted.