Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV44437, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44437    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On November 19, 2020, Plaintiffs Jose Tomas Aviles and Katherine Aviles, by and through her guardian ad litem Jose Tomas Aviles, filed this action against Defendants Wilshire Construction, LP (“Wilshire Construction”), Wilshire & Wilton, LLC (“Wilshire & Wilton”), Wilshire Construction Partners, Inc. (“Wilshire Construction Partners”), Jamison Partners, Inc. (“Jamison Partners”), and Does 1-50 for negligence and premises liability. 

On January 21, 2021, Wilshire & Wilton and Wilshire Construction filed an answer and a cross- complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-20 for total indemnity, implied partial indemnity, declaratory relief, equitable apportionment, and express indemnity. 

On February 10, 2021, Wilshire Construction Partners and Jamison Partners filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-20 for total indemnity, implied partial indemnity, declaratory relief, equitable apportionment, and express indemnity. 

On June 1, 2021, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant Precision Concrete (“Precision”) as Doe 1. 

On July 15, 2021, Precision filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Wilshire Construction, Wilshire & Wilton, Wilshire Construction Partners, Jamison Partners, and Roes 1-50 for indemnity, partial indemnification, and declaratory relief. 

On January 31, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement. 

On December 14, 2023, Petitioner submitted a petition for approval of minor’s compromise to be heard on January 18, 2024. 

PETITIONER’S REQUEST 

Petitioner Jose Tomas Aviles asks the Court to approve the compromise of the pending action of Katherine Aviles. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

The parties to a lawsuit may settle a minor’s claim or the claim of a person who lacks the capacity to make decisions only with court approval.  (Prob. Code., §§ 2504, 3500, 3600 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; see Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337.) 

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 

Petitioner has submitted a completed petition with all applicable attachments. 

Counsel requests an attorney’s fee award of $3,333.00, which is 33 percent of the $10,000.00 gross settlement amount.  Counsel reduced the fee from 45 percent in the best interests of the minor. 

California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, “requires a trial court, in determining reasonable attorney fees, to balance an attorney's interest in fair compensation with the protection of the interests of a minor client. Thus, a trial court ‘must give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made.’ ” (Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1176-1177 (Schultz), quoting Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955(a)(2).) 

The Court has considered the factors listed in rule 7.955 and concludes that an attorney’s fee award of 30 percent is reasonable in this case.  (See Schultz, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 1175 [“Even if there is no benchmark starting point for attorney fees in cases under California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, a court may of course reasonably determine that 25 percent is an appropriate percentage in a given case”].) 

Therefore, the attorney’s fee award will be $3,000.00, which is 30 percent of the gross settlement amount.  The net settlement amount for Claimant is $3,375.14. 

The Court approves the petition as modified. 

Petitioner requests that the net balance be paid to Jose Tomas Aviles at 3926 Ingraham Street, Unit #6, Los Angeles, CA 90005. The Court orders the net balance so distributed. 

CONCLUSION 

          The Court GRANTS the petition to approve the compromise of Plaintiff Katherine Aviles’s action filed by Petitioner Jose Tomas Aviles.  The Court orders the net balance of $3,375.14 be paid to Petitioner Jose Tomas Aviles. 

          The Court sets an OSC Re: Distribution of Net Settlement on March 18, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

The Court sets an OSC Re: Dismissal of Case (Settlement) on March 18, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. 

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Petitioner is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.