Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV06644, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Evelyn Rayo’s petition to approve minor’s compromise for Abigail Rayo is granted. The Court orders the funds deposited in an insured account with JP Morgan Chase, 401 E. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court.

Petitioner Evelyn Rayo’s petition to approve minor’s compromise for Ruby Salgado is granted. The Court orders the funds deposited in an insured account with JP Morgan Chase, 401 E. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court.

Petitioner Evelyn Rayo (“E. Rayo”) (“Petitioner”), on behalf of Claimants Desteny Arias (“Desteny”), Abigail Rayo (“Abigail”), and Ruby Salgado (“Ruby”) (collectively, “Claimants”) petitions the Court to approve the minor’s compromises in the settlement of the instant action.

Petitioner, individually and as guardian ad litem for Claimants (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an initial complaint against Defendants Hudson Rose Investments LLC (“Hudson Rose”) and Eric T. Carlisle (“Carlisle”) individually and as trustee of the Chestnut Revocable Living Trust (“Trustee”) (collectively, “Defendants”) on March 27, 2023. Plaintiffs attempted to file with the Court a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants on September 29, 2023, which was not filed. On October 4, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants for (1) breach of the implied warranty of habitability, (2) breach of statutory warranty of habitability, (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (4) negligence, (5) violation of Civil Code §1942.4, (6) private nuisance, (7) violation of the City of Long Beach Ordinance No. ORD 20-0044, (8) wrongful/constructive eviction, (9) fraud, (10) breach of contract, and (11) unlawful business practice, Business & Professions Code §§17200 et seq., for issues at an apartment building located at 921 Chestnut Ave., Long Beach, CA 90813 (“Subject Property”). (See SAC.) Pursuant to the instant petitions, Defendant Hudson Rose has agreed to pay Plaintiffs to settle the claims. (See Petitions ¶¶10b, 11, Attach. 11.)

A settlement was reached pursuant to which Defendants Hudson Rose agreed to pay a total of $50,000.00. (Petitions ¶10a, Attach. 11.) The three minor Claimants will receive a gross sum of $5,000.00 each, and the one adult Petitioner will receive a gross sum of $35,000.00. (Petitions ¶16(a), Attach. 11; Decl. of Chapman ¶7.) The total amount of attorney’s fees for which court approval is requested is $16,481.21 (or $1,160.65 per minor, and $12,999.26 to Petitioner), calculated as twenty-five percent of the minor Claimants’ settlement total and forty percent to the adult Petitioner and is based on a contingency basis. (See Petitions ¶¶10(c), 16(c), Attach. 11; Decl. of Chapman ¶¶9, 11.) The total amount of costs and expenses for which court approval is requested is $3,574.08 (or $357.41 per minor, and $2,501.85 to Petitioner), calculated as twenty-five percent of the minor Claimants’ settlement total and forty perfect for the adult Petitioner, and is based on a contingency basis. (See Petitions ¶¶10(c), 13(a), 16(d), Attach. 11; Decl. of Chapman ¶¶9, 10.) The net balance of proceeds to each minor Claimant is $3,481.94. (Petitions ¶¶15, 16(f), Attach. 11; Decl. of Chapman ¶8.) All procedural requirements have been met, as Petitioner has completed a Judicial Council form MC-350 on behalf of each minor Claimant, signed by the Petitioner, as well as Form MC-351 on the minor 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 minor claimants would each receive $3,481.94. The amounts reflect payment amounts to each minor claimant after deduction of attorneys’ fees representing 25% of each minor claimant’s settlement. (See Petitions ¶16(f).)

This is a habitability suit, in which minor claimants lived in uninhabitable conditions, including but not limited infestations of cockroaches, rats, and bed bugs, which caused injuries including bed bug bites, lack of sleep, and allergies including running nose and coughs. (Petitions ¶¶5-6.) The minor claimants have recovered completely from these injuries with no permanent injuries. (Petitions ¶8.)

Petitioner’s counsel, Christofer R. Chapman, declares that the attorney fees requested are based on a contingency basis if there was no recovery, there would have been no attorney fee charge. (See Decl. of Chapman ¶9.) Chapman declares he represented Plaintiffs for approximately two years. (Decl. of Chapman ¶2.) Chapman declares that during the instant litigation his firm propounded form request for production of documents to the defendant on behalf of the adult and minors in this case. (Decl. of Chapman ¶11.) Chapman declares a set of supplemental form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for product of documents was also propounded to update the defendants’ previous responses. (Decl. of Chapman ¶11.) The responses and documents produced were reviewed and analyzed for their application to the prosecution of each Plaintiff’s case or a defendant’s defense. (Decl. of Chapman ¶11.) Defendants served a set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents for each of the adult and minor plaintiffs. (Decl. of Chapman ¶11.)

Petitions include copies of agreements between Petitioner and her counsel. (Attachs. 17(a)(2).) Each agreement identifies the names of the individual who signed the submitted fee agreements on behalf of the minor clients as well as a certified English translation of the original agreement, which was executed in Spanish. As such, the submitted copies of the written legal services agreement with minor claimants are sufficient and support the attorneys’ fees request.

Petitioners request this Court order the disposition of the minor claimants’ balance of the settlements, in the amount of $3,481.94 per minor claimant, be deposited in insured accounts with JP Morgan Chase, 401 E. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court until the minor Claimants reach the age of majority. (Petitions ¶18(b)(2), Attachs. 18(b)(2).)

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

Based on the foregoing, the petitions to approve the minors’ compromise are granted. The Court orders the funds deposited in insured accounts with JP Morgan Chase, 401 E. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court until the minor Claimants reach the age of majority.

The Court sets a hearing on an Order to Show Cause as to the whereabouts of the Proofs of Deposit and Requests for Dismissal as to these plaintiffs on January 13, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 71.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court