Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV20014, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Jaquemery Ibarra, guardian ad litem for Julieta Valenzuela (“Petitioner”)

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

This is a habitability action. Plaintiffs Jaquemery Ibarra, Salvador Ramirez, Jaqueline Ibarra, Josseline Arredondo, Daniel Ibarra and Julieta Valenzuela (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sue Defendants Rodolfo Garcia Ochoa, Maria Garcia, Rodolfo G. Ochoa and Maria Garcia, Co-Trustees, or their successors in Trust, under the Rodolfo Ochoa and Maria Garcia Revocable Living Trust dated November 10, 2023 and Does 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to an August 8, 2024 complaint (“Complaint”) alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) nuisance; (4) negligence; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) wrongful eviction; (7) violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; and (8) violation of Civil Code § 1950.5(1).

On May 8, 2025, Petitioner filed this petition (the “Petition”) for approval of a minor’s compromise for settlement of this action as it relates to Julieta Valenzuela, a minor (the “Claimant”). The Petition is unopposed.

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.)

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

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. 2, §§ 6, 8.a., Attach. 11b(6).) The Petition indicates the total settlement amount (Petition, p. 3, § 11b(1), Attach. 11b(5).), the gross proceeds allocated to Claimant (Petition, p. 3, § 10.a.), and the net proceeds allocated to Claimant (Petition, p. 6, §§ 15, 16.f.)

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) [Jonathan Nielsen, SBN No. 239416, Nielsen, Peterson & Nielsen LLP, 5700 Moon Drive, Ventura, CA 93003.)

(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. [has not been compensated].)

(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. [did not so become involved].)

(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 [is representing another party].)

(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 [does expect to receive other compensation].)

(6) The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney. (Petition, p. 7 § 17.a.(2), Attach 17a, [stating compensation amount of 40% of recovery] Attach 13(a) [stating compensation request of $625.00].)

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

The Petition satisfies CRC, rule 7.953. The Petition specifies the name and address of the parent and the amount of money to be delivered. (Petition, p. 8, § 18.b.(5), Attach. 18b(5) [Jaquemery Ibarra, 5127 1/2 Clara Street, Cudahy, CA 90201, $1,875.00].)

This Petition need not satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 7.954. This rule provides the requirements for requesting the withdrawal of funds already deposited in favor of a minor or person with a disability pursuant to a prior compromise, which is not the case here.

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 $625.00. (Petition, Attach 13(a).) Counsel undertook this matter on a contingency basis and litigation has been ongoing for approximately 1 year. (Attach. 17a.)

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 $2,500. (Petition, p. 3, §§ 10.a.) Claimant did not have physical injuries and had no claims for rent abatement, property damage, or statutory damages. (Petition, Attach. 11b(6).)

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