Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 22STCV15021, Date: 2024-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15021    Hearing Date: July 10, 2024    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date:             July 10, 2024

Case Name:                Nidiam Gutierrez, et al. v. Arturo Berrera and Juanita Berrera, as Trustees of the Berrera Family Trust UTD August 23, 2007

Case No.:                    22STCV15021

Motion:                       Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor

Moving Party:             Petitioner Nidiam Gutierrez

On May 5, 2022, Plaintiffs Nidiam Gutierrez, Luis Aparicio, Erik Anguiano, and minor Plaintiff Alessandro Anguiano Gutierrez, by and through his guardian, Nidiam Gutierrez, filed an action against Arturo Berrera and Juanita Berrera[1], as trustees of The Berrera Family Trust Utd August 23, 2007 for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) negligence, and (5) nuisance.  Plaintiffs allege that they rented a residential property owned and operated by Defendants and Defendants failed to maintain the property in habitable conditions despite numerous complaints from Plaintiffs.  As a results, Plaintiffs sustained damages.

On May 9, 2022, the Court granted Nidiam Gutierrez’s Application for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem and appointed her guardian ad litem of her twelve-year-old son Alessandro Anguiano Gutierrez.

            On May 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement indicating a conditional settlement had been reached.

            On June 7, 2024, Petitioner Nidiam Gutierrez (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor (“Petition”) on behalf of minor Claimant Alessandro Anguiano Gutierrez (“Claimant”).

            No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard for Approval of Minor’s Compromise

            Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim.  (Prob. Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; CCP § 372.) “‘[W]ithout trial court approval of the proposed compromise of the ward’s claim, the settlement cannot be valid.  [Citation.] [¶] Nor is the settlement binding [on the minor] until it is endorsed by the trial court.’”  (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.)  A minor, like Claimant, “shall appear either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in each case.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 372(a)(1).)  Alternatively, the petitioner may file a declaration demonstrating that he or she has a right to compromise the minor’s claim under Cal. Probate Code § 3500.

            Regarding the substance of the Petition, to obtain court approval of the settlement of a minor’s claims, the petitioner must file a complete and “verified petition for approval of the settlement and must disclose ‘all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise.’ [Citations.]”  (Barnes v. Western Heritage Ins. Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 249, 256; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)  (Italics added.)

Under Probate Code § 3505, if a petition is unopposed, the Court must issue a decision on the petition at the conclusion of the hearing.

Discussion

            Having reviewed the instant Petition, the Court makes the following findings.

Petitioner Nidiam Gutierrez seeks an order approving the proposed compromise of a pending action on behalf of minor Claimant Alessandro Anguiano Gutierrez.

If approved, the action will settle in the total amount of $10,000, to paid to the Claimant in a lump sum.  Defendants have also offered to pay $110,000 to the other parties in the action, including the Petitioner, for claims arising out of the same incident.  There are no medical expenses or attorney’s fees to be deducted from the gross settlement amount.  The net proceeds of the settlement, in the amount of $10,000, are to be deposited in an insured account, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court.  Petitioner has provided the Court with details regarding the financial institution where the sum is to be deposited and filed an MC-355 Proposed Order to Deposit Funds in Blocked Account.  Moreover, Petitioner has properly filed an MC-351 Proposed Order and Proof of Service.

The Court finds that the Petition has been properly filed and the settlement amount is fair and reasonable based on the circumstances of the case and supporting documentation. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is granted.

Conclusion

The Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor, filed by Petitioner Nidiam Gutierrez on behalf of minor Claimant Alessandro Anguiano Gutierrez is granted.  Moving party to give notice.