Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV35959, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35959    Hearing Date: February 14, 2024    Dept: 56

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

KARLA MARITZA GOMEZ BAIZA, et al.,

                        Plaintiffs,

            vs.

 

KENMORE LOMA, LLC, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

 

      CASE NO.: 22STCV35959

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE

 

Date: February 14, 2024

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

 

 

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiff Karla Maritza Gomez Baiza (“Petitioner”)

 

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).

 

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of warranty of habitability; (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) negligence; and (4) breach of contract. 

 

 

On January 17, 2024, Petitioner, as the guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff Melanie Alexandra Luis (“Claimant”), filed a petition to approve compromise of disputed claim (the “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.)

 

            Plaintiffs have agreed to settle their claims against Defendants for the total amount of $70,000.  The terms of the settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) allocate $30,000 to each of the parental Plaintiffs and $5,000 each to Claimant and Plaintiff Jeysson Luis Gomez.  The Petition requests approval to deduct $1,250 from Claimant’s $5,000 total recovery to pay attorney’s fees and $180.25 to pay for costs.  The Petition also requests that Claimant’s proceeds be sent to Claimant’s parents as provided in Attachment 18b(5).

 

Attorney’s Fees

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 this representation was accepted on a contingency basis.  (Declaration of Rachel Fishenfeld (“Fishenfeld Decl.”) ¶ 11.)  The requested deduction of attorney’s fees represents 25 percent of Claimant’s recovery.  (Fishenfeld Decl. ¶ 4.)  Counsel declares that Defendants only agreed to enter into a settlement agreement after counsel conducted at least 25 hours of research into Plaintiffs’ claims.  (See Fishenfeld Decl. ¶ 9.) 

 

            The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable and the requested amount of attorney’s fees is fair and reasonable.  For these reasons and because it is unopposed, the Court provisionally GRANTS the Petition conditioned on Petitioner appearing (either remotely or in person) at the hearing.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

 

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 14th day of February 2024

 

 

 

 

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court