Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV15659, Date: 2025-03-25 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.

Case Number: 22STCV15659    Hearing Date: March 25, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Robert Gonzalez (“Petitioner”)

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 California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner, individually and as guardian ad litem for minor claimants Dylan Gonzalez and Robert Gonzalez, Jr. (collectively, “Minor Claimants”), and Plaintiffs Michelle Gonzalez and Valerie Gonzalez, initiated this action which arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. The operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) breach of warranty of habitability; (4) negligence; (5) nuisance; (6) violation of California Civil Code section 1950.5; (7) unfair business practices; (8) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; and (9) constructive eviction.

All Plaintiffs and Minor Claimants have agreed to settle their claims against Defendants Paula Lopez, as trustee of The Raul and Paula Gisela Lopez Trust and Raul Lopez, as trustee of The Raul and Paula Gisela Lopez Trust (collectively, “Defendants”). Petitioner filed petitions to approve the compromise of disputed claim on behalf of Minor Claimants (the “Petitions” or “Petition”).

DISCUSSION

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.)

All Plaintiffs have agreed to settle their claims against Defendants for $180,000. The proposed settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) allocates $2,500 for each Minor Claimant, $2,500 for Valerie Gonzalez, and the remaining $172,500 to the Plaintiffs Robert and Michelle Gonzalez.  Minor Claimants only sustained emotional injuries and did not receive treatment.  Attachment 11b(6) to the Petitions states that the majority of the settlement funds are for a refund of rent paid during the time when the property was uninhabitable along with reimbursement for out of pocket expenses.  The Petitions do not request any deductions from the Minor Claimants’ portion of the settlement funds.  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.  Attachment 18b(2) is not attached to the Petitions but is specified in the Declaration of Robert Gonzalez (“Gonzalez Decl.”) filed concurrently with the Petitions.  (Gonzalez Decl., ¶ 7.) 

RULING

The Petitions are DENIED, without prejudice.  The Petitions contain typographical errors rendering them unclear and are missing attachments and information.  Attachment 18b(2) should be attached to the Petitions rather than stated in a declaration.  The Petitions are also missing Attachments 17a and 17e.  Further, Items 17c and 17f of the Petitions should be filled out.  Lastly, Items 10b and 10c contain typographical errors.  If all of these defects in the Petitions are corrected in Amended Petitions and filed with the Court before the hearing date, the Court will consider granting the Amended Petitions. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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.

Dated this day 25th of March 2025