Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 20STCV01019 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Christopher Pineda (“Pineda”); Manuel Alfaro (“Alfaro”); Nathalie Mikakamene Bakuma (“Bakuma”); Shameka Wilson (“Wilson”); Delvorine Gabourel (“Gabourel”); and Erendira Ramirez (“Ramirez”) (collectively, “Petitioners”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

Plaintiffs, individually and as guardians ad litem for minor claimants (collectively, “Minor Claimants”), initiated this action which arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) breach of 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 section 1942.4; and (6) private nuisance; and (7) declaratory relief.

Petitioners and Minor Claimants have agreed to settle their claims against Defendant Broadway Vistas (“Defendant”). Petitioners filed petitions to approve the compromise of disputed claim on behalf of Minor Claimants (collectively, the “Petitions”). Pineda filed a Petition on behalf of: (1) Ian Osnaya; and (2) and Khristen Pineda. Alfaro filed a Petition on behalf of: (1) Justin Alfaro; (2) Eugene Alfaro; (3) Allison Alfaro; (4) Charlotte Alfaro; and (5) Jayden Alfaro. Bakuma filed a Petition on behalf of: (1) Rayden Believe Mukanya; (2) Esther Olombo Omeonga; (3) Paul Yamba Yamba Omeonga; and (4) Christiana Ashidi Omeonga. Wilson filed a Petition on behalf of: (1) Serenity Kennedy; and (2) Ha’Nyila Oneil. Gabourel filed a Petition on behalf of Zariah Miller. Ramirez filed a Petition on behalf of Arturo De Jesus Gomez.

If an action is pending and settlement is effected prior to trial, the minor’s compromise must be approved by the court. (CCP § 372.) A petition to approve a minor’s compromise is governed by California Rules of Court (“CRC”), rules 7.950, et seq. and Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600 et seq. The trial court is authorized to approve and allow payment of reasonable expenses, costs, and attorney fees in an action concerning the compromise of a minor’s claim. (Prob. Code § 3601, subd. (a); Curtis v. Estate of Fagan (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 270, 277-79; see also CCP § 373.5.)

Plaintiffs have agreed to settle their claims against Defendant for $1,750,000. The proposed settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) allocates $7,500 to each Minor Claimant, with the remaining amount divided among the other settling Plaintiffs.[1] The Petitions request approval to deduct $1,854.24 from each Minor Claimant’s portion of the Settlement to cover attorney’s fees and $83.02 in costs. The Petitions also request that Minor Claimants’ respective proceeds from the Settlement be deposited in insured accounts specified in Attachment 19b(2), subject to withdrawal only upon authorization of the Court.

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. (CRC, r. 7.955(a).) The court must give consideration to the terms of the agreement between the attorney and minor’s representative and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made. (CRC, r. 7.955(a)(2).) CRC, rule 7.955(b)(2) sets out nonexclusive factors the court may consider in determining the reasonableness of attorney’s fees in connection with a petition for minor’s compromise. Under CRC, rule 7.955(c), the petition must include a declaration by the attorney addressing the factors set forth in CRC, rule 7.955(b)(2) that are applicable to the matter that is before the Court.

Minor Claimants’ counsel declares that this action involves 77 Plaintiffs consisting of 33 minors and 44 adults. (Declaration of Christofer Chapman (“Chapman Decl.”) ¶ 2.) The adult Plaintiffs have received a larger portion of the Settlement than Minor Claimants in order to compensate them for breach of contract, medical expenses, property damage, out-of-pocket costs and other losses not suffered by Minor Claimants. (Chapman Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs’ respective recoveries under the Settlement are based on their individual time living at the property during the statutory period. (Id.) Minor Claimants suffered bug bites and allergy-type symptoms, which have been treated with over-the-counter medications. (Id.) Counsel accepted this case on a contingency basis and the fee agreement executed with Plaintiffs indicates that counsel is entitled to collect 40 percent of the net recovery of adult Plaintiffs and 25 percent of the net recovery of Minor Claimants in attorney’s fees. (See Chapman Decl. ¶ 4; Attachment 18a.) Counsel estimates that the average amount of time expended in the prosecution of this case on behalf of Minor Claimants is approximately 20 hours each. (Chapman Decl. ¶ 5.)

The Court finds that the Settlement is fair and reasonable and the requested amount in attorney’s fees is fair and reasonable. For these reasons and because they are unopposed, the Court therefore provisionally GRANTS the Petitions, conditioned on Petitioners appearing (either remotely or in person) at the hearing. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] With respect to the Petitions brought on behalf of more than one Minor Claimant, Attachment 12C specifies that the amount of $7,500 is allocated to each Minor Claimant identified in the Petition individually.