Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV11783, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11783    Hearing Date: July 29, 2024    Dept: 56

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

FLORIDALMA AGUSTIN, et al.,

                        Plaintiffs,

            vs.

 

GARY GILLMAN, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

 

      CASE NO.: 23STCV11783

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF CLAIM OR ACTION OF DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS OF JUDGMENT FOR MINOR

 

Date: July 29, 2024

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Dept. 56

 

 

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiff Floridalma Agustin (“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

            Petitioner, individually and as guardian ad litem for minor claimants Kayro Jehiel Carranza-Agustin (10); Loida Jocabed Carranza (8); and Elimelec Aliel Carranza-Agustin (4) (collectively, “Minor Claimants”), and Plaintiff Hugo Adolfo Carranza (collectively “Plaintiffs”), initiated this action against Defendants Gary Gillman; Debbie Gillman; and Encino Management Services (collectively, “Defendants”).  This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  The complaint alleges: (1) breach of warranty of habitability; (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) negligence; and (4) breach of contract.

 

Petitioner filed the instant petitions to approve the compromise of disputed claim on behalf of Minor Claimants (collectively, the “Petitions”). 

 

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.)

 

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.

 

Here, the Minor Claimants, by and through Petitioner, their guardian ad litem, have agreed to settle their claims against Defendants in exchange for $5,000 each.  Upon approval, $1,250 of each settlement payment will be allocated towards attorney’s fees, and $725.61 will be used to reimburse the fees and costs advanced by Plaintiffs' counsel, leaving a balance of $3,024.39 to be disbursed to Petitioner for each minor claimant.

 

            The Court finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable.  Further, the Court considers the requested amount in attorney’s fees, which amounts to 25% of each settlement payment, to be fair and reasonable.  For these reasons and because they are unopposed, the Court provisionally GRANTS the Petitions, 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 29th day of July 2024

 

 

 

 

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court