Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 20STCV28155, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV28155 Hearing Date: November 28, 2023 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Deysi Valdez, et al. v. KK Del Rosa LLC
Petitions for Minors’ Compromise
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court GRANTS Miguel’s petition.
The Court GRANTS Daniela’s petition.
Miguel and Daniela are ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of same within five days of the Court’s order.
BACKGROUND
This is a habitability case. On July 27, 2020, this action was filed. On December 23, 2022, the operative Second Amended Complaint was filed by Plaintiffs Deysi Valdez, Homero Gochez, Jonathan Campos, Miguel Angel Valdez, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Deysi Valdez, Ana Ayard, Jose Ayard, Francisco Lucas, Maria Castrejon, Kerum Lucas, Francisco Lucas Castrejon, Myriam Rodriguez, Daniela Nicol Dominguez Rodriguez, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Myriam Rodriguez, Patricia Guzman, Jose Luis Lopez, William Martinez, Christian Castrejon, Daniel F. Hudson, and Miriam Ayard, against Defendant KK Del Rosa LLC and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for failure to provide habitable dwelling, breach of covenant and right to quiet enjoyment and possession of the property, nuisance, and negligence.
On August 10, 2023, Miguel and Daniela each filed a petition for approval of compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for minor or person with a disability. On October 12, 2023, after hearing, the Court changed its tentative ruling and continued the hearing on the petitions to October 26, 2023, so that the petitions could be amended to correct the errors noted in the tentative ruling. Plaintiffs were ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.
On October 13, 2023, Miguel and Daniela filed petitions to address the issues identified in the Court’s October 12, 2023 order.
On October 26, 2023, after being called for hearing, the Court made no ruling on its tentative ruling and continued the hearing on the petitions to November 28, 2023, so that counsel could address the issues outlined in the Court’s tentative ruling.
On November 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed and served a Notice of Ruling setting forth the Court’s October 26, 2023 tentative ruling.
As to Miguel’s petition, the Notice of Ruling stated that: (1) Miguel failed to give notice of the Court’s October 12, 2023 ruling; and (2) it was not clear from the petition whether Miguel had capacity to enter into the retainer agreement. (11/07/23 Notice of Ruling, Exhibit A at p.2.) The Court indicated that it would not deny the petition on those two grounds alone. (Id.) The Court, however, took issue with the petition being executed on August 7, 2023, which was before the Court’s October 12, 2023 ruling noting defects in the petition. (Id.) Also, the Court stated that paragraph 3 of Miguel’s proposed order to deposit funds in a blocked account was incomplete. (Id.)
Concerning Daniela’s petition, the Court found that Daniela’s petition contained some of the same discrepancies as Miguel’s and was largely identical to Miguel’s petition. (Id.) Daniela did not give notice of the Court’s October 12, 2023 ruling. (Id.) The Court also noted that Daniela’s petition was signed by Myriam and there was nothing in the file to indicate that Myriam had the legal authority to enter into the retainer agreement on Daniela’s behalf. (Id.) The Court, however, indicated that it would not deny the petition on those two grounds alone. (Id.) The Court took issue with Daniela’s petition being executed on August 7, 2023, which was before the Court’s October 12, 2023 ruling, and that the same petition was used but with changes made to it after it was executed. (Id.)
On November 8, 2023, Miguel and Daniela filed and served the instant petitions to address the issues articulated in the Court’s October 26, 2023 tentative ruling.
DISCUSSION
Petition for Minor’s Compromise (Miguel Angel Valdez)
Claimant Miguel Angel Valdez, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Deysi Valdez, i.e., the petitioner for Miguel, has agreed to settle his claims against Defendant KK Del Rosa LLC, in exchange for $10,666.66, $8,000.00 of which will go to Miguel. If approved, $2,666.66 will be used to pay attorney’s fees, leaving a balance of $8,000.00 for Miguel, to be directly deposited into a special needs trust account with CalABLE belonging to Miguel.
Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (Probate Code, §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) The Court has reviewed the proposed settlement and finds it to be fair and reasonable. Further, the Court finds the proposed attorney’s fees, equaling 25% of Miguel’s settlement proceeds, to be fair and reasonable in light of the case having progressed for three years before settling.
Initially, the Court finds that the instant petition was executed on November 6, 2023. The Court notes that the retainer agreement with Miguel was signed by Miguel himself, rather than through Deysi or another authorized signatory on his behalf. (Attachment 17a, ¶ 10.) Letters of Conservatorship for a Limited Conservatorship were issued to Deysi on July 20, 2018, well before the execution of the retainer agreement on November 25, 2019. (Attachment 17a, ¶ 10; Attachment 18a.) Deysi provides a Representation Agreement Addendum (the “Addendum”), which provides that she is the mother and co-conservator of Miguel and the Letters of Limited Conservatorship allow her to control the right of Miguel to contract. (Attachment 17a.) The Addendum states that Deysi has “read and understand[s] the foregoing terms and conditions set forth in the Representation Agreement and agree[s] to them on Miguel Valdez’s behalf” and that she agrees “to be liable for all obligations under the foregoing contract.” (Id.) The Addendum was executed on November 6, 2023. The Court raised the issue of Miguel’s capacity to contract in its October 26, 2023 tentative ruling. Based on the Addendum, it appears that Deysi retroactively agrees to the retainer agreement signed by Miguel.
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Miguel’s petition.
Petition
for Minor’s Compromise (Daniela Nicol Dominguez Rodriguez)
Claimant Daniela Nicol Dominguez Rodriguez, by and through her parent and Guardian ad Litem, Myriam Rodriguez, i.e., the petitioner for Daniela, has agreed to settle her claims against Defendant KK Del Rosa LLC, in exchange for $10,666.66, $8,000.00 of which will go to Daniela. If approved, $2,666.66 will be used to pay attorney’s fees, leaving a balance of $8,000.00 for Daniela, to be deposited into a blocked account with Esquire Bank, 100 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 100, Jericho, NY 11753 until Daniela reaches the age of majority.
Daniela’s petition was executed on November 8, 2023. Here, the retainer agreement with Daniela is signed by Myriam, not Daniela, and it was executed on January 6, 2021. (Attachment 17a, ¶ 10.) Daniela is a minor. A minor lacks authority to enter into a contract. (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.) There is nothing in the file to indicate that Myriam had the legal authority to enter into the retainer agreement on Daniela’s behalf. Myriam did not obtain a court order to act as Daniela’s Guardian ad Litem until January 11, 2022. The Court raised the issue of Myriam’s capacity to contract in its October 26, 2023 tentative ruling. Myriam now submits a Representation Agreement Addendum (the “Addendum”) which provides that she is the mother and Guardian ad Litem of Daniela. (Attachment 17a.) The Addendum states that Myriam has “read and understand[s] the foregoing terms and conditions set forth in the Representation agreement and agree[s] to them on Daniela’s behalf” and that she agrees “to be liable for all obligations under the foregoing contract.” (Id.) The Addendum was executed on November 8, 2023. Based on the Addendum, it appears that Myriam retroactively agrees to the retainer agreement signed on behalf of Daniela.
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Daniela’s petition.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Miguel’s petition.
The Court GRANTS Daniela’s petition.
Miguel and Daniela are ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of same within five days of the Court’s order.