Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV10921, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10921    Hearing Date: March 11, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 

DEPARTMENT 72 

TENTATIVE RULING 

Petitioner Shoyne Riggins (“Petitioner”) seeks the approval of the compromise of the claims of Plaintiffs Jayliscia Riggs (“Jayliscia”), Jayelise Riggins (“Jayelise”), and Jaylia Riggins (“Jaylia”) (the Court uses first names for clarity only, and means no disrespect). 

The Court tentatively GRANTS the Petitions.  However, this grant is conditional on (a) Petitioner signing the petition, which Petitioner has not done; and (b) correction of the proposed order to reflect the correct amount of attorney’s fees deducted.

Background 

This is a landlord-tenant case. Petitioner, Jaylissa Lewis, Jayliscia, Jaylise, and Jaylia (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) lived at 15441 Nordhoff Street, Apt. 3, North Hills CA 91343 (the “Property”). Defendant Moss Management Services Inc DBA as Moss & Company (“Defendant”) is the owner and manager of the Property. 

Plaintiffs allege a number of defects in the Property that Defendants failed to fix, including plumbing, roach and rat infestation, and mold issues. 

Plaintiffs filed this action on May 1, 2024, alleging causes of action for (1) negligent maintenance of premises (Civil Code sections 1941.1, 1714(a); and 3333); and (2) breach of warranty of habitability. 

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 gross settlement value is $80,000. Each of the minors will receive $5,000. 

Petitioner requests approval of $1,250 in attorney’s fees to be taken from each minor’s settlement, an amount equal to 25 percent. The retainer’s agreement attached indicates that the attorney’s fee will be 40%. The net settlement for each minor will be $3,750. 

No medical expenses or costs will be taken out of the minors’ settlements. It appears medical expenses have not been incurred. The retainer agreement attached indicates that costs will be advanced by the attorney and repaid by Plaintiffs. It is unclear from the retainer agreement attached how the costs will be distributed among the parties. 

However, Petitioner’s signature is not on the Petitions. Further, the petitions state attorney fees are $1,250, and the net settlement also accounts for that much in attorney fees, but on item 8a(1) of the proposed orders granting the petitions, attorney fees are listed as $500. Thus, item 8a(1) of the proposed orders should say $1,250.

Petitioner’s Petitions for Approval of Compromise for Minors are conditionally GRANTED, once Petitioner signs the Petitions and the proposed orders are corrected. The Petitions meet all requirements set forth in California Rules of Court rules 7.590 to 7.595 and the Court is satisfied that the Settlement is in the best interests of the minors.