Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 21STCV36459, Date: 2024-05-07 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 have been received.

On October 4, 2021, Plaintiffs Candice Hicks, Amari Parrish, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Candice Hicks, Amiya Parrish, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Candice Hicks, and Amere Hicks, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Candice Hicks (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action against Defendant Sukh Maya Properties, LLC (“Defendant”), alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) negligent hiring and supervision; (3) violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; and (4) negligence.

On October 6, 2021, the Court granted Petitioner’s applications for appointment of guardian ad litem for Amere Hicks and Amiya Parrish.

On January 14, 2022, Defendant filed its answer to the complaint. Thereafter, on January 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of unconditional settlement with the Court.

On March 25, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant petitions to confirm the minor’s compromises of Plaintiffs Amiya Parrish and Amere Hicks.

“[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors, [is] a role to assure that whatever is done is in the minor’s best interests…[I]ts primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor’s injuries, care and treatment.” (Goldberg v. Sup. Ct. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.)

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (Probate Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc. § 372.) A petition for court approval of a compromise or covenant not to sue under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court, rules 7.950, 7.951 and 7.952. The petition must be verified by the petitioner and contain a full disclosure of all information that has “any bearing upon the reasonableness” of the compromise or the covenant. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)

Petitioner has filed two petitions to confirm the minor’s compromise for Plaintiffs Amiya Parrish and Amere Hicks. Amiya Parish, a minor, by and through Petitioner, has agreed to release her claims against Defendant in exchange for $6,000. If approved, $2,000 will be used to pay attorney’s fees, and $60 will be used for nonmedical expenses, leaving a balance of $3,940 for Amiya Parish, to be deposited in an insured account with Schools First Federal Credit Union located 4001 N. Lakewood Blvd., Ste 120, Long Beach, CA 90808, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the court. Also, Amere Hicks, a minor, by and through Petitioner has agreed to release his claims against Defendant in exchange for $4,000. If approved, $1,333 will be used to pay attorney’s fees, and $60 will be used for nonmedical expenses, leaving a balance of $2,607 for Amere Hicks, to be deposited in an insured account with Schools First Federal Credit Union located 4001 N. Lakewood Blvd., Ste 120, Long Beach, CA 90808.

Upon review of the proposed settlements, they both appear to be fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Further, the requested attorney’s fees stated in both petition, which amount to approximately a third of the total settlements, are fair and reasonable. However, there are defects in both petitions. First, Petitioner has failed to include an Order to Deposit Funds in Blocked Account (form MC-355) for both petitions. Second, both petitions are missing a copy of the written attorney fee agreement.

Accordingly, the hearing on the petitions is continued to May 28, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in order to allow Petitioner to correct these defects by supplementing the petitions with the above-referenced documents by May 14, 2024. In addition, Petitioner is ordered to appear, either in person or remotely, at the continued hearing.

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