Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is a negligence case.  Plaintiffs Molin Joslin individually and as guardian ad litem for minors Samson Price Rosenheck and Isaac Clay Rosenheck have asserted a negligence claim against Defendant The Irvine Company for alleged injuries relating to the condition of their apartment at the Villas at Playa Vista Sausalito apartment community located in Playa Vista, CA. Plaintiffs claim there was water damage to their apartment which resulted in mold exposure to Plaintiffs.  The water leaks caused Plaintiffs to suffer from various health conditions including sinusitis and rhinitis, which affected Joslin the most, causing her to develop a chronic cough.  The minor children also suffered from some coughing.  The water leaks caused Plaintiffs to have to move out temporarily to allow repairs to take place, which allegedly caused them stress and anxiety.  The operative complaint alleges a single claim for negligence.   

This hearing is on two petitions to approve minors’ compromise.  Defendant has reached a settlement with Plaintiffs, in the following amounts: (1) Molly Joslin, $26,000; (2) Isaac Rosenheck, $5,000 and (3) Samon Rosenheck, $5,000.  Each of the minor children will receive a net balance of $3,750 of the settlement proceeds, and their attorneys fee will be $1,250 (or 25% of their settlement proceeds).  The minor claimants have not incurred medical charges, and there are no medical liens.  There is no opposition to the petitions.  ¿ 

 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Compromises of disputed claims brought by minors are governed in part by Code of Civil Procedure section 372.¿ The statute allows guardians ad litem to appear in court on behalf of minor claimants and gives the guardian ad litem the power to compromise minors’ claims “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.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)¿ California Rules of Court 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 cause 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.)¿¿¿ 

California Rules of Court, 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.”¿¿¿¿ 

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

DISCUSSION 

 

Petitioner Molly Joslin seeks court approval for a settlement under which, her sons, the minor claimants (Isaac and Simon) will receive $3,750, each.¿ This amount is after deduction of attorneys’ fees of $1,250, for each minor claimant. 

The Declaration of Jeffrey Nodd provides sufficient support for the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees.¿ First, the fees are pursuant to a contingency fee agreement for 25% of any recoveries.  The fee allocation reflected the risk that counsel would receive no compensation, and a total loss of all expenditures if the case did not result in an award for Plaintiffs.  That fee allocation also reflects that counsel would delay taking payment until the matter was favorably resolved.  Counsel typically charges an hourly rate of $495, and his typical contingency fee is 33.3% pre-litigation and 45% for litigation, of the gross settlement obtained plus costs and expenses after filing of a lawsuit.  In this case, counsel agreed to represent Claimants on a reduced contingency fee of 25% because they were minors.  (Nodd Decl. ¶11.)   

Second, the value of counsel’s services is proportionate to the amount of fees sought.  Counsel spent time obtaining case information from Petitioner and Claimants, preparing and mailing a notice of claim to Defendant and its agents, numerous telephone calls and emails with Defendant and its agent/attorneys with respect to the status of the case and settlement, preparing and filing the complaint, and court appearances made in this litigation.  In addition, counsel spent 4 hours preparing and filing the petitions for approval of minor’s compromise and anticipate another 2-3 hours to appear at the hearing of the motion.  On the petitions alone, Counsel will have spent 6-7 hours, which at an hourly rate of $495, would amount to $2,970 to $3,465.  These amounts are greater than the amount of the contingency fee counsel is seeking ($2,500 for both Claimants).   

Third, while the issues involved were not difficult, they were still disputed and required skill to handle properly.   

Fourth, Claimants’ recovery was fair and reasonable.  Claimants suffered from minor coughing and did not seek medical treatment, so the recovery of $5,000 for each Claimant was reasonable.     

Fifth, counsel has 23 years experience, and has represented several clients in personal injury, medical malpractice, wrongful death and products liability actions.  (Nodd Decl. ¶ 2.)  

On these facts, the Court concludes the settlement and its apportionment is fair and reasonable and grants the petitions to approve minor’s compromise.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the petitions to approve minor’s compromise.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: December 17, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court