Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 21STCV14378 2022-10-27 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.

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).

This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. The complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) tortious breach of warranty of habitability; (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) nuisance (negligence); (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5) negligent maintenance of the premises; (6) nuisance (intentional tort); and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiffs have agreed to settle their claims against Defendant Realty Holdings PSJC, LLC (“Defendant”). Petitioner filed a petition as guardian ad litem to approve the compromise of disputed claim on behalf of for minor Plaintiff Anthony Hernandez (“Claimant”) (the “Petition”).

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 $50,000. The proposed settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) allocates $1,000 to Claimant, with the remaining amount divided among the other settling Plaintiffs. The Petition requests approval to deduct $250 from Claimant’s portion of the Settlement to cover attorney’s fees. The Petition also requests that Claimant’s proceeds from the Settlement be paid to Petitioner, as Claimant’s parent and guardian ad litem.

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.

Claimant’s counsel declares that the fee agreement he entered into with Plaintiffs provided that he would retain attorney’s fees as provided by CRC, rule 7.955. (Declaration of Carlos A. Lloreda, Jr. (“Lloreda Decl.”) ¶ 5.) The Lloreda Declaration, however, does not address the factors set forth under CRC, rule 7.955. As a result, the Court is unable to determine the reasonableness of the fee request. The Court therefore CONTINUES the hearing on the Petition to November 10, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in this department to allow Petitioner to file supplemental information regarding the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees, which is to be filed by November 3, 2022.

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