Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV17172, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17172    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 61

Petitioner Gloria Hernandez’s Petitions to Approve Minor’s Compromises for Claimants Hugo Dimas, Jr., Litzy Dimas, and Thomas Dimas are GRANTED.

I.                PETITION FOR MINOR’S COMPROMISE

Minors or people without legal capacity to make decisions must appear in court by a guardian, conservator of the estate, or guardian ad litem. (Code Civ. Proc. § 372, subd. (a)(1).) Such person appearing in court on behalf of the minor or person without capacity has the power to compromise the claims of the represented person, “with the approval of the court.” (Ibid.) The requirement of court approval exists “to protect the best interests of the minor.” (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.)

“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 on the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.” (CRC Rule 7.950.)

If an attorney assisted in the preparation of the petition, the petition must disclose: “(1) The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney; (2) Whether the attorney became involved with the petition, directly or indirectly, at the instance of any party against whom the claim is asserted or of any party's insurance carrier; (3) Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter; (4) Whether the attorney has received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation; (5) If the attorney has not received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, whether the attorney expects to receive any fees or other compensation for these services, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who is expected to pay the fees or other compensation; and (6) The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney.” (CRC Rule 7.951.)

The petitioner and claimant must attend the hearing on the petition unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. (CRC Rule 7.952, subd. (a).)

In all cases under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 or Probate Code sections 3600-3601, unless the court has approved the fee agreement 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 or a person with a disability.

The court must give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability and must 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 or person with a disability contemplated that the attorney's fee would be affected by later events.

(CRC Rule 7.955, subd. (a)(1)–(2).)

The settlement that petitioner Gloria Hernandez seeks to have approved in relation to minor claimants Hugo Dimas, Jr., Litzy Dimas, and Thomas Dimas, is as follows. Defendants are to pay a gross settlement amount of $130,000.00 to all Plaintiffs, with the two adult plaintiffs — Gloria Hernandez and Hugo Dimas — to receive gross payments of $59,000.00 each, with each minor plaintiff to receive a lesser amount: Litzy Dimas, the eldest, is to receive $6,000.00; Thomas Dimas, the next oldest, $3,500.00; and Hugo Dimas, Jr., the youngest, to receive $1,500.00. (Petition Att. 12.) From each of these payments shall be deducted a 25% cut for attorney fees, yielding net payments of $4,500.00, $2,625.00, and $1,875.00. These amounts are to be deposited in blocked, insured accounts, subject to withdrawal upon the authorization of the court. (Petitions at p. 9.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel offers a declaration explaining the disparity in settlement proceeds between adults and minor plaintiffs, reasoning that while all plaintiffs were exposed to the hazards at issue, the adults incurred greater expenses, in the form of rent, relocation, and remediation, that the minor claimants did not have to bear. (Petition Att. 6.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel also provides a description of the case: filed in May 2020, the parties exchanged written discovery. (Franco Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs’ counsel inspected the property and reviewed government records regarding the legality of the residential unit. (Franco Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs’ counsel has been licensed since 1998, and was formerly a director of a legal services organization representing habitability plaintiffs. (Franco Decl. ¶ 24.) A copy of the legal services agreement is attached to each petition. (Petition Att. 18a.)

The settlement is reasonable. The disparity in settlement amounts between adult and minor plaintiffs is justified by the greater financial responsibility for the harm that the adult plaintiffs bore. The fees sought by Plaintiffs’ counsel are reasonable in relation to the services provided, the rate charged, the experience of counsel, and the results obtained.

The petitions are GRANTED.