Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV25414, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25414    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Ana Valle Esparza petitions the Court for approval of the compromises of the claims of Plaintiffs Anahi Arleen Flores (“Anahi”) and Joselyn Yamile Flores (“Joselyn”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) (the Court uses the parties first names to avoid confusion, and means no disrespect), both of whom are minors.

The Court tentatively GRANTS the petition to approve the compromises.  However, the Court will do so subject to Plaintiff further explaining at argument the reasons behind the division of the settlement between the minors on the one hand and the adult plaintiff on the other. 

Background

This is a landlord-tenant case.

Plaintiffs were tenants at a property owned by Defendant which was allegedly infested with insects. Anahi and Joselyn allegedly suffered insect bites, the effects of infestations, and general damages. (Esparza Decl. ¶ 4.) Neither suffered any permanent injuries. The property also suffered from faulty plumbing, poor maintenance, and deteriorated floors, walls, and windows. (Esparza Decl. ¶ 3.)

The parties reached a settlement following a mediation before the Honorable Lisa Cole (Castelblanco Decl., ¶ 6.)

Plaintiffs filed this action on August 5, 2022, alleging violations of the implied warranty of habitability. Esparza is the Guardian ad Litem for Anahi and Joselyn.

On February 13, 2024, Esparza filed petitions to approve the compromise of the claims on behalf of Anahi and Jocelyn. No party filed an opposition.

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

Esparza has properly verified both of the petitions.

The parties engaged in extensive discovery throughout this case, including subpoenas to third-party vendors, written discovery to defendant and all plaintiffs, and depositions. Defendant has not conceded liability.

The gross settlement value is $720,000.00. Anahi and Joselyn will each receive gross values of $70,000.00. Esparza will receive a gross value of $580,000.00.

Plaintiff’s counsel is charging Esparza a 45% contingency fee and 25% to Anahi and Joselyn. The effective attorney fee rate for this case is 41.11 percent, which the Court finds to be reasonable. Costs of litigation, which amount to $15,155.73, will only be taken out of Esparza’s portion of the settlement. Following these deductions, Esparza will receive $303,844.27 and each of the minor Plaintiffs will receive $52,500.00.

The settlement proceeds for the minor Plaintiffs will be placed directly into an interest-bearing account for each minor Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s counsel explains that they believe it reasonable to allocate less of the settlement to the minor Plaintiffs because “[a] material component of the damages sustained by the adult was her frustration in approaching management and trying to have the problems fixed, being forced to engage in self-help, complaining to the City and County inspectors and perhaps most significantly, the frustration of seeing the minors live in substandard conditions. Moreover, Petitioner was working to pay the monthly rent, put food on the table and undertake the responsibility of taking care of her family and the minors.” (Castelblanco Decl. ¶ 7.)

While this basis could warrant increased damages for Esparza, the Court wishes to make sure that the amount apportioned for the minor Plaintiffs is not disproportionately small.  The Court therefore requests further argument on why the current division is reasonable.