Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV36980, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff via the Department's email: SMCdept71@lacourt.org before the set hearing time. See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b). All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect for all matters.

Petitioner Alex Perez Gomez’s petition to approve minors’ compromise for Alex Perez Jr. is granted.

Petitioner Alex Perez Gomez’s petition to approve minors’ compromise for Iker Santiago Perez Gomez is granted.

Petitioner Alex Perez Gomez (“Gomez”), on behalf of Claimants Richard Jayime Perez Rodas (“Richard”), Alex Perez Jr. (“Alex Jr.”), Michael Gael Perez Gomez (“Michael”), and Iker Santiago Perez Gomez (“Iker”) petitions the Court to approve minors’ compromises in the settlement of the instant action.

Petitioner, individually and as guardian ad litem for Richard, Alex Jr., Michael, and Iker (collectively, “Claimants”), together with other named Plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant 5049-5107 Buffalo Avenue LLC (“Buffalo Avenue”) (“Defendant”) on November 23, 2022, for (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) negligence, (4) breach of contract, (5) negligence, (6) premises liability, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress for issues at a multi-family apartment building located 5107 Buffalo Ave., Sherman Oaks, CA 91423. Assessor’s Parcel Number 2359-024-041 (“Property”), owned and managed by Defendant, where Plaintiffs were tenants. (Complaint ¶¶8-12.) Pursuant to the instant petitions, Defendant has agreed to pay Plaintiffs to settle the claims. (Petitions ¶¶10, 11.)

A settlement was reached pursuant to which Defendant agreed to pay a total of $80,000. (Petitions ¶11(b).) The four settling minor plaintiffs (Michael, Richard, Alex Jr., and Iker) will receive $5,000.00 each; Petitioner will receive $10,000.00; Dilcia Patricia Perez Gomez will receive $40,000.00; and Katy Maribel Gomez Navas will receive $15,000.00. (Petitions ¶11(b)(5).) The total amount of attorney’s fees for which court approval is requested is $1,250.00, calculated as twenty-five percent of the claimant’s settlement total and is based on a contingency basis, and the total fees are $85.96. (Petitions ¶13; Decl. of Fishenfeld ¶¶4, 11.) The net balance of proceeds for each Claimant is $3,664.04. (Petitions ¶¶15, 16.) All procedural requirements have been met, as Petitioners have completed a Judicial Council form MC-350 on behalf of each Claimant, signed by Petitioner, as well as Form MC-351 on Claimants’ behalf.

Compromises of disputed claims brought by minors are governed in part by C.C.P. §372. The statute allows a guardian ad litem to appear in court on behalf of a minor claimant and gives the guardian ad litem the power to compromise the minor’s claim “with the approval of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending.” A petition for court approval of a compromise 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 or covenant. (CRC Rule 7.950.) CRC Rule 7.952(a) requires the attendance of the petitioner and claimant at the hearing on the compromise of the claim unless the court for good causes dispenses with their personal appearance.

“Neither section 372 nor the California Rules of Court (rules 7.950 & 7.952) contemplates a noticed motion and adversary hearing when court approval of a minor’s compromise is sought. Although we need not decide the question, it would appear that a petition to approve or disapprove a minor’s compromise may be decided by the superior court, ex parte, in chambers.” (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337.)

CRC Rule 7.955(a) requires the Court to use “a reasonable fee standard” when approving and allowing the amount of attorneys’ fees payable from money to be paid for the benefit of a person with a disability and requires that the Court “give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor . . . and evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made, except where the attorney and the representative of the minor . . . contemplated that the attorney’s fee would be affected by later events.”

CRC Rule 7.955(b) sets forth fourteen nonexclusive factors the Court may consider in determining a reasonable attorney’s fee. CRC Rule 7.955(c) requires that a petition requesting Court approval and allowance of an attorney’s fee under 7.955(a) must include a declaration from the attorney that addresses the factors listed in 7.955(b) that are applicable to the matter before the Court.

Petitioner seeks court approval for a settlement under which Claimants would each receive $3,664.04. Th amounts reflect payment amounts to each Claimant after deduction of attorneys’ fees representing 25% of each Claimant’s settlement and after deduction of costs in amounts specific to each Claimant. (See Petitions ¶16.)

This is a habitability suit, in which Claimants lived in uninhabitable conditions which caused injuries including damage to personal property, personal injury, emotional distress, pain, anxiety, discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, diminishment of the value of their leasehold, rent abatement, restitution of all rents paid. (Petitions ¶¶5-6.) Claimants have recovered from these injuries with no permanent injuries. (Petitions ¶8.)

Petitioner’s counsel, Rachel Fishenfeld, declares that the attorney fees requested are based on a contingency basis and attorneys’ fees are contingent on a settlement or judgment. (Decl. of Fishenfeld ¶¶4, 11.) Fishenfeld declares the costs advanced in this matter are a minimum of $85.96 on behalf of each Claimant. (See Decl. of Fishenfeld ¶11.) Fishenfeld declares this case required extensive investigation, discovery, and negotiation with all parties involved, including a continuing attempt to educate the parties of exactly what happened and why a settlement was appropriate. (Decl. of Fishenfeld ¶7.) Fishenfeld declares a minimum of 25 hours was spent by her firm to bring this case to a resolution. (Decl. of Fishenfeld ¶9.) Fishenfeld declares the attorneys’ fees sought in this matter from the minors is reasonable and in line with the requirements of the Probate Code as it relates to the representation of minors. (Decl. of Fishenfeld ¶5.)

Petitions include copies of agreements between Petitioners and their counsel. (Attachments 17(a)(2).) Each agreement identifies the names of the individuals who signed the submitted retainer agreements on behalf of the minor clients. As such, the submitted copies of the written attorney fee arrangement agreements with Claimants are sufficient and support the attorneys’ fees request.

Petitions indicate Claimants’ balance will be paid or delivered to the parent of the minor, without bond, on the terms and under the conditions specified in Probate Code §§3401-3401, and the name and address of the parent and the money is specified in Attachment 18b(5). (Petitions ¶18(b)(5).)

Given the age of the Claimants, the Court will only require attendance at the hearing by the Petitioner to grant the petition. (CRC Rule 7.952.)

Based on the foregoing, the petition to approve the minors’ compromise is granted.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court