Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV06137, Date: 2024-11-27 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 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).

Petitioner, individually and as guardian ad litem for minor claimants Adele Hamo (6) and Liam Hamo (6) (collectively, “Minor Claimants”), and Plaintiff Lior Hamo, initiated this action against Defendants Lori Pietruszka Sussman; Marvin Pietruszka; JAL2433, LLC; and SG California, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. The complaint alleges: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of contract; (3) negligence; and (4) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 45.30; (5) fraud; (6) intentional misrepresentation; and (7) constructive eviction.

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

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.)

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 $1,000 each. Upon approval, $330 of each settlement payment will be allocated towards attorney’s fees, leaving a balance of $670 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 represents a 33% contingency fee, 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.)

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