Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 19STCV20203, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV20203    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: A

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiffs Judith Ayala ("Judith"), Alejandro Ledesma ("Alejandro"), and Francisco Ledesma, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Judith Ayala ("Francisco", and together, "Plaintiffs") filed suit against Defendants Grace Song ("Grace"), Young Song ("Young"), and Grace Song & Young Song as Co-Trustees d.b.a. White Street Properties ("White Street", and together, "Defendants"), alleging that Plaintiffs have been tenants at the real property located at 10817 White Street, Sun Valley, California 91352 ("Subject Property"), owned by Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of defective conditions on the Subject Property resulting in habitability issues but have refused to remedy such issues.

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on June 6, 2019, alleging eight causes of action: (1) Negligent Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (2) Intentional Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (3) Nuisance – Negligence; (4) Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Use; (5) Negligent Violation of Statutory Duty; (6) Violation of Statutory Duty – Intentional; (7) IIED; and (8) IIED.

PRESENTATION:

The Court received the Expedited Petition to Confirm Minor’s Compromise filed by Plaintiffs on April 7, 2022. The Court has not received any opposition or reply.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiffs move for approval of a compromise of a claim as to minor Francisco Ledesma.

ANALYSIS:

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors [is] . . . to assure that whatever is done is in the minor's best interests. The court functions similarly in approving a minor's compromise where its primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor's injuries, care and treatment.” (Goldberg v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.) Pursuant to CCP § 372, any settlement of a claim made by a minor or an adult with a disability must be approved by the Court.

An expedited petition without a hearing is permitted under CRC Rule 7.950.5 so long as:  (1) Petitioner is represented by an attorney; (2) the claim is not for wrongful death; (3) settlement proceeds will not be placed in a trust; (4) there are no unresolved liens to be satisfied from the proceeds of the settlement; (5) petitioner’s attorney did not become involved at the request of Defendant or the insurance carrier; (6) Petitioner’s attorney is not employed by nor associated with a Defendant or insurance carrier in connect with the petition; (7) if an action is filed, all Defendants have appeared and are participating in the compromise or the court has determined the settlement to be in good faith; and (8) the settlement, exclusive of interests and costs, is $50,000 or less.

II.        MERITS

The petition represents that the total settlement amount paid by Defendants to Plaintiffs is $45,000, with Judith to receive $21,000, Alejandro to receive $21,000, and Francisco to receive $3,000. (Pet., ¶ 13.)

In paragraph 8, the petition states that Francisco suffered emotional distress as a result of the defective conditions. In paragraph 10, the petition states that Francisco has fully recovered and suffered no permanent injury.

CRC Rule 7.955(a) provides that unless the Court approved the fee arrangement in advance, the Court must use a reasonable fee standard when approving and allowing the amount of attorney's fees payable from money or property paid or to be paid for the benefit of a minor. The Court must consider the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made. Further, Rule 7.955(c) requires the attorney to submit a declaration that addresses the following non-exclusive factors:

(1) The fact that a minor or person with a disability is involved and the circumstances of that minor or person with a disability.

(2) The amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services performed.

(3) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill required to perform the legal services properly.

(4) The amount involved and the results obtained.

(5) The time limitations or constraints imposed by the representative of the minor or person with a disability or by the circumstances.

(6) The nature and length of the professional relationship between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability.

(7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney or attorneys performing the legal services.

(8) The time and labor required.

(9) The informed consent of the representative of the minor or person with a disability to the fee.

(10) The relative sophistication of the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability.

(11) The likelihood, if apparent to the representative of the minor or person with a disability when the representation agreement was made, that the attorney's acceptance of the particular employment would preclude other employment.

(12) Whether the fee is fixed, hourly, or contingent.

(13) If the fee is contingent:

(A) The risk of loss borne by the attorney;

(B) The amount of costs advanced by the attorney; and

(C) The delay in payment of fees and reimbursement of costs paid by the attorney.

(14) Statutory requirements for representation agreements applicable to particular cases or claims.

(CRC Rule 7.955(b).)

In paragraph 17, the petition states that Francisco will receive $3,000 with no medical expenses, attorney’s fees, legal expenses, or other expenses deducted from the total. The petition indicates that Plaintiffs’ counsel has already received or expects to receive payment in the amount of $45,000 from Plaintiffs, with $12,000 coming from Judith, $12,000 coming from Alejandro, $3,000 coming from Francisco, and $18,000 coming from Plaintiffs’ counsel himself.  Such a payment appears to be 50% of the amount received by the minor.  The settlement was achieved without a trial, and the court must judge the reasonableness of such a large portion of the proceeds.  The Court was not provided a copy of the retainer agreement, nor has counsel completed the declaration mandated by CRC Rule 7.955

III.       CONCLUSION

The Court thus continues the instant motion and directs Plaintiffs’ counsel to file a declaration satisfying CRC Rule 7.955.

---

TENTATIVE RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiffs Judith Ayala; Alejandro Ledesma; and Francisco Ledesma, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Judith Ayala came on regularly for hearing on August 18, 2022, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE PETITION FOR MINOR’S COMPROMISE IS CONTINUED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CRC 7.955.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:  August 18, 2022                               _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles