Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 21STCV06450, Date: 2024-11-26 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 PARTY: Plaintiffs Reynaldo Ventura (“Reynaldo”), Erika Ventura (“Erika”), Marie Urieta (“Urieta”), Lorena Cortez (“Cortez”), Jennifer Sandoval (“Sandoval”), Ivon Ibarra (“Ibarra”), Dominga Santiago (“Santiago”) and Belen de la Rosa (“de la Rosa”) (collectively, “Petitioners”)[1]

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed. Any opposition was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 1005, subd. (b).)

Petitioners, individually and as guardians ad litem for minor claimants (collectively, “Minor Claimants”), initiated this action which arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. The operative First Amended Complaint alleges: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) negligence; and (4) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4.

Plaintiffs and Minor Claimants have agreed to settle their claims against Defendant Estate of George Efrain Gutierrez. Petitioners filed petitions to approve the compromise of disputed claim on behalf of Minor Claimants (the “Petitions” or “Petition”). Reynaldo filed a Petition on behalf of Reyna Ventura. Erika filed a Petition on behalf of Giselle Ventura. Urieta filed a Petition on behalf of Angel Zackary Funez. Cortez filed a Petition on behalf of Jeancarlos Valencia. Sandoval filed a Petition on behalf of Jose Daniel Cabral. Ibarra filed Petitions on behalf of (1) Alexander Torres and (2) Iker Morales. Santiago filed a Petition on behalf of Alexandra de la Rosa. De la Rosa filed a Petition on behalf of Ricardo Gutierrez.

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’s 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 $330,750. The proposed settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) allocates $1,000.03 for each Minor Claimant. The Petitions request approval to deduct $243.27 from each Minor Claimant’s portion of the Settlement to cover attorney’s fees and $26.96 in costs. The Petitions also request that Minor Claimants’ respective proceeds from the Settlement be deposited in insured accounts specified in Attachment 18b(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 49 Plaintiffs, consisting of 10 minors and 39 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 bodily injury, emotional distress, property damage, out-of-pocket costs, rent reimbursement and other lease damages not suffered by Minor Claimants. (Chapman Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8.) Minor Claimants suffered allergies and insect bites (Id, ¶ 7.) 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. (Id., ¶ 9.) Counsel estimates that the average amount of time expended in the prosecution of this case on behalf of Minor Claimants is approximately 30 hours each. (Chapman Decl. ¶ 11.)

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.) The Court sets a Non-Appearance case review for January 15, 2025 at 10 am regarding proof of the deposit of the net settlement funds in insured accounts.

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] The Court uses first names to distinguish persons with the same last name and intends no disrespect in so doing.