Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 19STCV40188, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV40188 Hearing Date: March 6, 2023 Dept: 55
PALACIOS
v. 667 S. CARONDELET ST., LLC 19STCV40188
Hearing Date: 3/8/23,
Dept. 55
#7:
PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF DISPUTED CLAIM.
PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF DISPUTED CLAIM.
Notice: Okay
No
Opposition
MP:
Petitioner
ARGELIA MARISOL GUEVARA, Guardian ad litem for claimants JOSEPH ORTIZ, age 4,
and JOHN ORTIZ, age 2.
RP:
Summary
On 11/7/19, plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging
that damages arose out of vermin infestations, including bedbugs and rodents,
during their tenancies at the subject property.
The causes of action are:
1. TORTIOUS BREACH OF THE
WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
2. NEGLIGENCE
3. BREACH OF QUIET
ENJOYMENT.
On 5/20/20, Defendants/Cross-Complainants 667 S.
CARONDELET ST., LLC and STATEWIDE ENTERPRISES, INC., filed a Cross-Complaint against
Cross-Defendant 667 SOUTH CARONDELET STREET, LLC, for:
1. EQUITABLE INDEMNITY
2. EQUITABLE CONTRIBUTION
3. APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT
4. DECLARATORY RELIEF.
On 8/9/22, plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint.
MP
Positions
Petitioner requests approval of minors compromises, on
bases including the following:
·
Defendants offered to settle by paying
each Claimant $5,000.00.
·
The total amount offered by all defendants
to others is $470,000.00.
·
Claimants lived in a unit that was owned
and managed by Defendant and that had uninhabitable conditions.
·
Claimants experienced emotional injuries
due to living in uninhabitable conditions, and received no treatment.
·
The claimants recovered completely.
·
For each Claimant, the gross settlement
amount of $5,000; less attorneys fees at 25% or $1,250, and evenly split costs
at $486.29, leaves a balance of $3,263.71 to be deposited into a blocked bank account
located with Citibank.
Tentative
Ruling
The petitions are granted.
The Court will sign and file proposed form orders from
Petitioner.
Courts must decide whether to approve a compromise by
determining if petitioners, such as guardians, are acting in the best interests
of minors or incompetent persons. E.g., CCP §372(a); Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co. (1995)
39 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1603-07. “[T]he protective role the court generally
assumes in cases involving minors, [is] a role to assure that whatever is done
is in the minor's best interests…. [I]ts
primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the
minor's injuries, care and treatment.” Goldberg
v. Sup.
A petition for court approval of a compromise under
Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court
rules 7.950, 7.951, and 7.952. CRC Rule
3.1384(a). Some of the Probate Code and
the Code of Civil Procedure apply to compromises as to minors’ claims. CRC Rule 7.950. An order for the deposit of funds of a minor
or a disabled person must comply with rules 7.953. CRC Rule 3.1384(b). In large part, the Local Rules incorporate by
reference the California Rules of Court and statutory provisions. See L.A.S.C.L.R. 4.115 et seq.