Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 22CHCV01006, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01006    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: F49

Dept. F49 

Date: 4/23/24

Case: Karen Ortiz, et al.,

v. Sierra Canyon Apartment

#1, LLC, et al.

Case # 22CHCV01006

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION FOR MINOR

Motion filed: 4/8/24

MOVING PARTY: Karen Ortiz (“Petitioner”)

RESPONDING PARTY: none 

NOTICE: OK 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order approving compromise for minor Claimant Jackeline Gonzalez (“Claimant”)

TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged uninhabitable conditions in the Plaintiffs’ apartment.

On October 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Karen Ortiz, Daniel Gonzalez, Jackeline Gonzalez, and Nathaly Gonzalez, the latter two by and through their Guardian ad Litem Karen Ortiz, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action.

On October 31, 2022, the Court granted Petitioner’s application to be appointed minor Plaintiffs’ Guardian ad Litem.

On April 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Sierra Canyon Apartments #1, LLC, Sierra Canyon Apartments #2, LLC, 6 Star Properties, LP (collectively “Defendants/Cross-Complainants”), and Does 1 through 30, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Tortious Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (2) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (3) Nuisance (Negligence); (4) Negligent Maintenance of the Premises; (5) Nuisance (Intentional Tort); and (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Subsequently, on July 20, 2023, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed their Answer to the FAC.

On July 21, 2023, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed their Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Klingbeil Capital Management, Ltd., KMF Sierra Canyon, LLC, and Roes 1-20, alleging (1) Equitable Indemnity, (2) Implied Indemnity, and (3) Contribution. Subsequently, Cross-Defendants filed their Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On April 8, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action (“the Petition”) on behalf of minor Plaintiff Jackeline Gonzalez.

On April 15, 2024, the Court granted Petitioner’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to hear the Petition.

No opposition has been received.

ANALYSIS

An enforceable settlement of a minor’s claim or that of a person lacking the capacity to make decisions can only be consummated with court approval.  (Prob. Code, §§ 2504, 3500, 3600 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; see Pearson v. Sup.Ct. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337.)  “[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors, [is] a role to assure that whatever is done is in the minor's best interests . . . [I]ts primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor's injuries, care and treatment.”  (Goldberg v. Sup. Ct. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.)

            A petition for court approval of a compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court, Rules 7.950, 7.951 and 7.952.

California Rules of court, Rule 7.950 provides, in relevant part, “[a] petition for court approval of a compromise of, or a covenant not to sue or enforce judgment on, a minor’s disputed claim; a compromise or settlement of a pending action or proceeding to which a minor or person with a disability is a party; or the disposition of the proceeds of a judgment for a minor or person with a disability under Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600-3613 or Code of Civil Procedure section 372 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, covenant, settlement, or disposition. Except as provided in rule 7.950.5, the petition must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).”  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.950.)

A.    Compromise for Minor

NAME OF MINOR(S):                                  Jackeline Gonzalez, 14 years old

NAME OF DEFENDANT(S):                       Sierra Canyon Apartments #1 , LLC; Sierra Canyon

Apartments #2, LLC; and 6 Star Properties, LP

Total Gross Settlement for all other claimants,

including adults: …………………………………………….           $ 102,500.00

Gross settlement for this Claimant………………………….            $ 2,500.00

Medical Expenses: ………………………………………......           $ 0.00

Expenses: …………………………………………................           $ 0.00

Attorneys’ fees to be paid from gross settlement……………….      $ 625.00

TOTAL TO BE PAID TO THIS MINOR:……………………        $ 1,875.00

1.         General Requirements

·         Petition on Form MC-350?                       Yes

·         Proposed Order on Form MC-351?          Yes

·         Proof of service on other parties?             Yes

2.       Type of injury, medical expenses:

·         Medical records documenting injuries and treatment?        No

·         Negotiated reduction in medical liens?                               No

·         Injuries completely healed?                                                 Yes

3.      Handling of funds

·         How are settlement funds to be disposed of:        Deposited into blocked account

·         Order to Deposit Money into Blocked Account on Form MC-355?  Yes

4.      Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs

·         Attorneys’ fees requested?           Yes

·         If yes, attorney declaration?         Yes

·         Copy of retention agreement?       Yes

·         Litigation costs requested?           Yes

The Court has reviewed the settlement and finds it is fair and reasonable. The Court also finds the attorneys’ fees fair and reasonable, as they amount to 25% of the settlement amount. 

CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s Petition for Approval of Compromise for Minor Jackeline Gonzalez is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this order.

Dept. F49 

Date: 4/23/24

Case: Karen Ortiz, et al.,

v. Sierra Canyon Apartment

#1, LLC, et al.

Case # 22CHCV01006

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION FOR MINOR

Motion filed: 4/8/24

MOVING PARTY: Karen Ortiz (“Petitioner”)

RESPONDING PARTY: none 

NOTICE: OK 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order approving compromise for minor Claimant Nathaly Gonzalez (“Claimant”)

TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged uninhabitable conditions in the Plaintiffs’ apartment.

On October 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Karen Ortiz, Daniel Gonzalez, Jackeline Gonzalez, and Nathaly Gonzalez, the latter two by and through their Guardian ad Litem Karen Ortiz, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action.

On October 31, 2022, the Court granted Petitioner’s application to be appointed minor Plaintiffs’ Guardian ad Litem.

On April 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Sierra Canyon Apartments #1, LLC, Sierra Canyon Apartments #2, LLC, 6 Star Properties, LP (collectively “Defendants/Cross-Complainants”), and Does 1 through 30, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Tortious Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (2) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (3) Nuisance (Negligence); (4) Negligent Maintenance of the Premises; (5) Nuisance (Intentional Tort); and (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Subsequently, on July 20, 2023, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed their Answer to the FAC.

On July 21, 2023, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed their Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Klingbeil Capital Management, Ltd., KMF Sierra Canyon, LLC, and Roes 1-20, alleging (1) Equitable Indemnity, (2) Implied Indemnity, and (3) Contribution. Subsequently, Cross-Defendants filed their Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On April 8, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action (“the Petition”) on behalf of minor Plaintiff Nathaly Gonzalez.

On April 15, 2024, the Court granted Petitioner’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to hear the Petition.

No opposition has been received.

ANALYSIS

An enforceable settlement of a minor’s claim or that of a person lacking the capacity to make decisions can only be consummated with court approval.  (Prob. Code, §§ 2504, 3500, 3600 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; see Pearson v. Sup.Ct. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337.)  “[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors, [is] a role to assure that whatever is done is in the minor's best interests . . . [I]ts primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor's injuries, care and treatment.”  (Goldberg v. Sup. Ct. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.)

            A petition for court approval of a compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court, Rules 7.950, 7.951 and 7.952.

California Rules of court, Rule 7.950 provides, in relevant part, “[a] petition for court approval of a compromise of, or a covenant not to sue or enforce judgment on, a minor’s disputed claim; a compromise or settlement of a pending action or proceeding to which a minor or person with a disability is a party; or the disposition of the proceeds of a judgment for a minor or person with a disability under Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600-3613 or Code of Civil Procedure section 372 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, covenant, settlement, or disposition. Except as provided in rule 7.950.5, the petition must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).”  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.950.)

A.    Compromise for Minor

NAME OF MINOR(S):                                  Nathaly Gonzalez, 9 years old

NAME OF DEFENDANT(S):                       Sierra Canyon Apartments #1, LLC; Sierra Canyon

Apartments #2, LLC; and 6 Star Properties, LP

Total Gross Settlement for all other claimants,

including adults: …………………………………………….           $ 102,500.00

Gross settlement for this Claimant………………………….            $ 2,500.00

Medical Expenses: ………………………………………......           $ 0.00

Expenses: …………………………………………................           $ 0.00

Attorneys’ fees to be paid from gross settlement……………….      $ 625.00

TOTAL TO BE PAID TO THIS MINOR:……………………        $ 1,875.00

1.         General Requirements

·         Petition on Form MC-350?                       Yes

·         Proposed Order on Form MC-351?          Yes

·         Proof of service on other parties?             Yes

2.       Type of injury, medical expenses:

·         Medical records documenting injuries and treatment?        No

·         Negotiated reduction in medical liens?                               No

·         Injuries completely healed?                                                 Yes

3.      Handling of funds

·         How are settlement funds to be disposed of:        Deposited into blocked account

·         Order to Deposit Money into Blocked Account on Form MC-355?  Yes

4.      Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs

·         Attorneys’ fees requested?           Yes

·         If yes, attorney declaration?         Yes

·         Copy of retention agreement?       Yes

·         Litigation costs requested?           Yes

The Court has reviewed the settlement and finds it is fair and reasonable. The Court also finds the attorneys’ fees fair and reasonable, as they amount to 25% of the settlement amount. 

CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s Petition for Approval of Compromise for Minor Nathaly Gonzalez is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this order.