Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case 19STCV22775 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Department 58

Motion: Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action on Behalf of Minor Arrow Meister

Tentative Ruling: The petition to approve compromise of pending action on behalf of minors is continued to a later date to permit review by the Probate Division of the Superior Court

This is a habitability case. Plaintiff Melissa Meister and Arrow Meister, a minor, sued Defendants Wendell Ahia and Ryan Scott for forcible entry, forcible detainer, unlawful termination of estate, breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, breach of contract, trespass, nuisance, negligence, and unfair business practices.

Plaintiffs allege that they leased a property owned by Defendants since 2011. Water allegedly leaked from the rooftop garden and caused mold and water damage to the interior of the residence. In early 2019, Plaintiffs then sought alternative housing for health reasons. Shortly after, Defendants allegedly sent Plaintiffs a “Notice of Belief of Abandonment” and changed the locks to the Property. Both Plaintiffs allege that they suffered physical injuries from the toxic mold, including respiratory conditions, allergies, and migraines.

Plaintiffs have settled the case with all Defendants for $935,000. Melissa Meister now seeks approval of a compromise of a claim on behalf of minor, Arrow Meister (age 10).

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim.¿ (Prob. Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) California Rules of Court, rule 7.950 provides that a petition “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.” The Petition must be filed on Judicial Council Form MC-350 and must be fully completed.

The Petition is properly filed on the Judicial Council forms and is verified. Petitioner has also submitted the requisite attachments with the Petition.

Of the $935,000 in settlement funds, $233,750 will be allocated to Arrow Meister, while his mother, Melissa Meister, will receive $701,250. This amount compensates Arrow for his “toxic mold caused symptoms throughout [his] childhood that mimicked those suffered by his mother during the same period of time.” (Attachment 7.) After the Plaintiffs moved out from the residence, their symptoms subsided almost immediately.

As to attorney’s fees, the retainer agreement provides for a 33 1/3% contingency fee. (Attachment 17a.) Counsel requests $311,355, which excludes costs in the amount of $44,642.85 and $35,977.50 for fees incurred between November 2022 and January 2023 after Petitioner approved the settlement terms. In support, he provides a detailed itemization of the services rendered during the course of this case, which results in total working hours of 1,664.60 over roughly four years, and a lodestar figure of $983,807.00. (Attachment 13a.)

Counsel’s declaration also supports the factors of reasonableness under California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b). (See generally, McNeil Decl., ¶¶ 17(i)-(bbb).) For example, he asserts that his expertise and connections resulted in the involvement of several Los Angeles City officials who became involved in this case. (Id. at ¶ 17(u).) He also attests to his qualifications and the amount of time and effort dedicated to this case. (Id. at 17(ii)-(rr).) Upon consideration of those facts, the Court finds that the amount of $311,355 is reasonable.

Petitioner seeks to establish an irrevocable trust for the minor’s proceeds of $233,750. (Petition, ¶ 18b(7).) This trust will operate as a “nest egg” for the minor’s future savings. (Attachment 11b(3).) She attaches a copy of the proposed trust terms. (Attachment 18b(7).)

The terms of this trust require approval by the Probate Division at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Under Los Angeles County Superior Court Local Rule 4.115(b), when a settlement “proposes the establishment of a special needs trust, minor’s trust, or other trust as provided in Probate Code sections 3600 to 3612, the Probate Division must review the terms of the proposed trust. The terms of the trust must include the provisions required in California Rules of Court, rule 7.903, and Local Rule 4.116.” Notably, the rule allows for an expedited review in cases such as this:

To facilitate timely review, a party seeking to establish and fund a trust as part of a petition for approval of a compromise filed in a civil department pursuant to subsection (a)(2) of this rule must, within two court days of the filing of the petition to approve the compromise and trust, lodge with the filing window of the Probate Division at Stanley Mosk Courthouse a physical copy of the face page of the petition to approve the compromise and attach a copy of the proposed trust instrument and the proposed order approving the compromise and trust.

Counsel is ordered to comply with Local Rule 4.115(b) for providing the Probate Department with the terms of the trust for review. The Court will continue this hearing to a date after Probate Division approval and as agreed by counsel at the hearing.