Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV42458, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42458    Hearing Date: October 31, 2022    Dept: 55

ESCAMILLA v. FLORES                                                   20STCV42458

Hearing Date:  10/31/22,  Dept. 55

#2:   PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF CLAIM OF MINOR .

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Plaintiff CAROLINA ESCAMILLA, mother and Guardian ad Litem for Plaintiff ANDREW ESCAMILLA.

RP:  

Summary

On 11/5/20, plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging that, during their tenancy at 1182 E 34th St, Los Angeles, the family lived in unhabitable conditions, including cockroaches, no operable heater, leaking when it rained, and illegal rooms being demolished.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order approving a compromise of a minor, on grounds including the following:

·         The parties settled for $100,000.00.

·         The minor would receive $3,000, and the balance of $2,250 would be deposited in a blocked account for withdrawal at age 18.

·         The minor son, age 11, did not suffer any physical injuries as a result of the uninhabitable conditions.  The primary injuries suffered by the claimant were frustration and distress.

·         Defendant had to relocate plaintiffs, and they were entitled to relocation benefits, which were approximately $21,200.00.

·         Attorneys’ fees from the minor’s recovery are limited to 25% of the gross recovery to the minors, or $750.

Tentative Ruling

The motion is granted, as prayed.

The Court finds that the settlement is fair to the minor, including because the settlement amount is within the ballpark of amounts recovered in like cases involving no physical injuries to the minor.

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 and covenants not to sue as to minors’ claims.  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.

In cases involving the compromise of a pending action of a minor, the court must determine an award of attorney fees under California Rules of Court, Rule 7.955, and not a local rule.  Gonzalez v. Chen (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 881, 888.  Typically, local rules require a showing of good cause to award more than 25 percent of a recovery.