Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 24STCV01117, Date: 2025-01-28 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: 24STCV01117    Hearing Date: January 28, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Petitioner Ashly Greene, guardian ad litem for Amiri Greene (“Petitioner”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

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

BACKGROUND

             This is a habitability cause of action. On January 16, 2024, plaintiffs Juanita Davis, Ashly Greene, Kayla Matts and Amiri Greene, by and through her guardian ad litem Ashly Greene, filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against defendant Sola Real Estate Fund, LLC and Does 1 through 100 alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) nuisance; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) negligence.

            On January 3, 2025, Petitioner filed this petition (the “Petition”) for approval of a minor’s compromise for settlement of this action as it relates to Amiri Greene, a minor (the “Claimant”). The Petition is unopposed.

DISCUSSION

            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.)  

Procedural Requirements

            A review of the Petition shows that it meets all the requirements in CRC rules 7.950 to 7.955. 

Rule 7.950 

The Petition satisfies CRC, rule 7.950. The petition was filed on verified Civil Form MC-350 seeking approval of the settlement on behalf of Claimant (Petition, p. 10 [Petitioner verification].) The Petition also contains a full disclosure of all information that bears upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition. (Petition, p. 3, §§ 11.b.(3), 11.b.(6); Attachs. 11b(3) and 11b(6).), The Petition indicates the total settlement amount (Petition, p. 3, §§ 10.a., 11.b.(1).), the gross proceeds allocated to Claimant (Petition, p. 3, §§ 10.a.), and the net proceeds allocated to Claimant (Petition, p. 6, § 16.f.) 

Rule 7.951 

The Petition satisfies 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. (Petition, p. 7, § 17.b.(1)-(3).)

(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. (Petition, p. 7, § 17.c.)

(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.)

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

(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. (Petition, p. 7, § 17.f, Attach. 17f.)

(6)  The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney. (Petition, p. 7 § 17.a.(2).)

 Rule 7.952 

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

Rule 7.953 and 7.954

This Petition need not satisfy CRC, rules 7.953 or 7.954.

Rules of Court, rule 7.955 

The petition satisfies 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 Claimant are 25% of the gross settlement amount to be paid to her. (compare Petition, § 10.a, with Petition, § 16.c.)

Substantive Requirements 

The Court finds that the judgment allocation is in the best interests of Claimant. (See Pearson v. Superior Court, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338.) Claimant will receive a gross settlement of $3,000. (Petition, p. 3, §§ 10.a.) The remaining part of the settlement collected will be distributed to the other plaintiffs (Petition, p. 3, §§ 11.b.), where Petitioner, Claimant’s guardian ad litem, will receive $23,000. (Petition, p. 3, §§ 11.b.) The minor Claimant had no physical injuries and had no claims for rent abatement, property damage or statutory damages. (Petition, p. 3, §§ 11.b; Attachment 11b(6).) Thus, the Petition is in the best of interest of Claimant.

The Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise of Claim is GRANTED.