Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 21STCV20105, Date: 2025-05-14 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: Petitioners Maria De Jesus Garcia, guardian ad litem for Edgar Hernandez Garcia; Lesly Soliz, guardian ad litem for Sahani Zelaya; Ofelia Montiel, guardian ad litem for Emanuel Montiel; Sara Cruz, guardian ad litem for Edwin Hipolito; and Eusevia Valencia, guardian ad litem for Edwin Jimenez (collectively, “Petitioners”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition or reply has been filed.

This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. The operative third amended complaint (the “TAC”) alleges: (1) negligence; (2) negligent failure to provide habitable premises; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (6) premises liability; (7) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; (8) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (9) nuisance; (10) collection of rent for untenable dwelling; and (11) constructive eviction and willful interruption of services.

On April 17, 2025, Petitioners filed these petitions (the “Petitions”) for approval of a minor’s compromise for settlement of this action as it relates to minors Edgar Hernandez Garcia, Sahani Zelaya, Emanuel Montiel, Edwin Hipolito and Edwin Jimenez (collectively, “Claimants”). The Petitions are unopposed.

Under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 372, any compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment made for a minor or adult with a disability must be approved by the Court. (See also Probate Code § 3600, subd. (b) [a compromise or covenant for a disputed claim or damages, money, or other property of a minor or person who lacks legal capacity is valid only after it has been approved by the superior court].) A petition for court approval of a compromise of a minor or disabled adult’s compromise or judgment of a pending action or proceeding to which this person is a party must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition. (California Rules of Court (“CRC”), rule 7.950; see also CRC, rules 7.950.5-7.955.)

The petition is generally submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability (Judicial Council form MC-350). (CRC, rule 7.950.) If the Court is satisfied that the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition is in the best interest of the person, then the Court should approve the same. (See Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.)

A review of the Petitions shows that they meet all the requirements in CRC rules 7.950 to 7.955.

The Petitions satisfy CRC, rule 7.950. The Petitions were filed on verified Civil Form MC-350 seeking approval of the settlement on behalf of Claimants (Petitions, p. 10 [Petitioner verification].) The Petitions also contain a full disclosure of all information that bears upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition. (Petitions, p. 3, §§ 11.b.(5), Attach. 11.b.(5).) The Petitions indicate the total settlement amount (Petitions, p. 3, §§ 10.a., 11.b.(1).), the gross proceeds allocated to Claimants (Petition, p. 3, § 10.a.), and the net proceeds allocated to Claimants (Petition, p. 6, §§ 15, 16.f.)

The Petitions satisfy CRC, rule 7.951. This requirement provides that where a petitioner has been represented or assisted by an attorney in preparing the petition to compromise the claim or in any other respect with regard to the claim, the petition must disclose specific information, which the petition contains as follows:

(1) The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney. (Petitions, p. 7, § 17.b.(1)-(3) [David Campbell Smith, SBN No. 130618, Taylor & Ring, Inner City Law Center, 1309 E. 7th Street, Los Angeles, California 90021.)

(2) 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. (Petitions, p. 7, § 17.c. [has not been compensated].)

(3) 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. (Petition, p. 7, § 17.d. [did not so become involved].)

(4) Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter. (Petitions, p. 7, § 17.e.; Attach. 17(e).)

(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. (Petitions, p. 7, § 17.f.; Attach. 11.b.(5).)

(6) The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney. (Petitions, p. 7 § 17.a.(2); Attach. 17a [stating compensation amount of 25% of recovery for minor’s claims].)

The Court finds that good cause dispenses with the need for Petitioners to attend the hearing on this matter.

The Petitions need not satisfy CRC, rule 7.953. This rule provides that, where ordered by the Court, an order for the deposit of funds of a minor or a person with a disability with a financial institution must be provided.

The Petitions include the terms and conditions of the annuities that the settlement allocations will be used to fund. (Petitions, p. 8, § 18.b.(3), Attach. 18b(3).)

The Petitions need not satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 7.954. This rule provides the requirements for requesting the withdrawal of funds already deposited in favor of a minor or person with a disability pursuant to a prior compromise, which is not the case here.

The Petitions satisfy CRC, rule 7.955. This rule requires that the Court determine whether the attorney’s fees charged of a minor or a person with a disability are reasonable. Here, the fees to be charged from Claimants are 25% of the gross settlement amount to be paid to them. (compare Petitions, § 10.a, with Petitions, § 16.c.) Counsel includes a declaration explaining the basis for the request, including a discussion of applicable factors listed in CRC, rule 7.955 subd. (b). (Attach. 13a.)

The Court finds that the judgment allocation is in the best interests of Claimants. (See Pearson v. Superior Court, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338.) 50% of the settlement will be split evenly amongst Claimants and the remaining 50% will be distributed based upon how long they lived in the building during the applicable statute of limitations. (Petitions, p. 3, §§ 10.a., 11.b.; Attach. 13(a), ¶ 7) Thus, the Petitions are in the best interest of Claimants.

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