Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV07700, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07700    Hearing Date: May 7, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Roshon Woods (“Petitioner”) seeks approval of the compromises of Plaintiffs Debraha Williams (“Debraha”), Josiah Williams (“Josiah”)(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) (the Court uses first names for clarity only, and means no disrespect to the parties).

The Court GRANTS the motions..

Background

This is a landlord-tenant case. Plaintiffs, who are minors, were tenants at a property allegedly owned by Defendants Eva E Moreno and the Eva E Moreno Trust and alleged a number of habitability issues at that property.

Plaintiff filed this action on March 3, 2022 through Woods, their guardian ad litem, who is also their mother. The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which alleges (1) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) collection of rent on substandard dwelling; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (5) negligence; and (6) nuisance.

On October 4, 2022, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the first, second, and third causes of action without leave to amend.

On November 15, 2023, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.

On April 19, 2024, Petitioner filed petitions for approval of the compromises of Debraha and Josiah’s claims. No party has filed an opposition.

On May 2, 2024, Petitioner filed an expedited petition for approval of the compromise of a third plaintiff, Jazaha Williams (“Jazaha”).  Petitioner did not request a hearing on that petition.  As the Court understands, that petition is not before the Court today. 

Legal Standard

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 372, any settlement of a claim made by a minor or adult with a disability must be approved by the court. If the court is satisfied that the settlement is in the best interest of the claimant, then the court shall approve the settlement. (See Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.)   

A petition for court approval of a compromise or covenant not to sue under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court, Rules 7.950, 7.951, and 7.952. The petition must be verified by the petitioner and contain a full disclosure of all information that has “any bearing upon the reasonableness” of the compromise or the covenant. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.950.)  The person compromising the claim on behalf of the minor or person who lacks capacity, and the represented person, must attend the hearing on compromise of the claim unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.952.)   

Discussion

            No party objects to the settlement here.

The parties engaged discovery in this case, including form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production. Plaintiffs’ counsel also engage in discovery motion practice. Defendants have not conceded liability.

The gross settlement value is $22,500.00. Each of Debraha, Josiah and Debraha will receive a gross value of $7,500.00.

The retainer agreement that Woods signed on behalf of Plaintiffs provides for a 25 percent contingent attorney fee. Plaintiffs’ counsel has not received any other compensation. The Court finds this fee to be reasonable. Under the settlement, the fee is divided evenly among the Plaintiffs.

Debraha incurred $1,933.42 in medical expenses. Josiah incurred $2,757.50 in medical expenses. Jazahah incurred $2,757.50 in medical expenses. These amounts were incurred in the form of MediCal reimbursements. These amounts are to be reimbursed from the proceeds of each Plaintiff’s respective settlement.

            Plaintiff’s counsel has advanced costs, which he requests be reimbursed from the settlement amounts. It cost $55.00 to serve each defendant, for a total cost of $110.00. Plaintiffs will also need to pay the filing fee, which is $455.25, prior to dismissal because the Court previously granted a fee waiver. Debraha’s settlement will be charged $189.25 for costs of litigation. Josiah’s settlement will be charged $187.00 for costs. Jazaha’ s settlement will be charged $189.00 for costs.  The differences in the cost charges are not explained.  However, because they are de minimis, the Court does not believe that they prevent the Court from granting the motions.