Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV14885, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20STCV14885    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: 55

SIERRA v. VALENZUELA                                                20STCV14885

Hearing Date:  9/7/22,  Dept. 55

Add-on:   PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF MINOR CLAIM.  

 

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

 

MP:  Petitioners/parents/Guardian ad litems.

RP:  

 

 

Summary

 

On 4/17/20, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging uninhabitable conditions that persisted at 450 and 450.5 W 2nd St., Los Angeles (San Pedro), CA 90731, against LAURA VALENZUELA, who has owned the property since September 12, 2018 and FERNANDO GARCIA, who owned the property for at least the four years prior to September 12, 2018.

The Court scheduled an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement), for 11/30/22 at 8:30  (8/3/22 minutes).

 

 

MP Positions

 

Guardians ad litem for several minor plaintiffs petition for approval of minors’ compromises, on bases including the following:

 

·         Defendants offered $272,500.00 to settle.

·         Per claimant, the settlement amount is $7,500.00 less case costs ($184.68) and attorney fees at 25% ($1,828.83), such that the balance of $5,486.49 will be deposited in a blocked account with JP Morgan Chase Bank.

·         Claimants suffered from bed bug bites, lack of sleep and allergies including running nose and coughs.

·         Treatments were not by any doctor, but included over the counter ointments, creams and rubbing alcohol that were applied to the claimant's skin to relieve itchiness due to insect bites, and non-prescription allergy and cough relief medications.

·         Minor claimants are as follows:

 

 

           

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The combined petition is granted, as prayed.

The Court will sign and file proposed orders from moving parties.

The Court finds that the settlement amounts are in the minor's best interests, including because they are in the “ballpark” of like cases alleging uninhabitable living conditions, with no major injuries, and involving complete recoveries.

Further, the Court finds that the Petition sufficiently complies with the procedural requirements. 

Most importantly, 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. Ct. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.  Judicial discretion in approving petitions for minors’ compromises, and ordering distributions, and local court policies, must be applied in the best interests of minors, in a case-by-case method, tailored to the circumstances.  Christensen v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 193 CA3d 139, 142-144.

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.  CRC Rule 7.950.  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.

CRC Rule 7.954 sets forth the procedure for petitioning for the withdrawal of funds deposited for a minor.  See also CRC Rule 3.1384(b) (requiring compliance with Rule 7.954).

Courts may consider evidence presented and determine reasonable amounts to be paid to attorneys representing minors.  Curtis v. Fagan (2000)  82 Cal.App.4th 270, 273;  Padilla v. McClellan  (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1106.