Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 21STCV06292, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV06292 Hearing Date: September 6, 2022 Dept: 55
SANTOS
LARES v. 916 CHESTNUT AVENUE LLC 21STCV06292
Hearing Date: 9/6/22,
Dept. 55
Add-on: PETITION TO APPROVE: COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION – MINOR.
Notice: Okay
No
Opposition
MP:
Plaintiffs.
RP:
Summary
On 2/17/21, plaintiffs filed a Complaint.
On 7/27/21, plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint, alleging they have resided at 916 - 926 Chestnut Ave. Long Beach,
and defendants, as lessor, owner and manager, breached the duty and the implied
warranty of habitability, by failing to correct substandard conditions, including
electrical deficiencies; plumbing deficiencies; lack of hot water; water leaks;
floors and walls containing mold and mildew; insect infestations; pest
infestations; security and safety deficiencies; storage deficiencies; and loss
of use of the premises.
The causes of action are:
1) BREACH OF IMPLIED
WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
2) BREACH OF STATUTORY
WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
3) BREACH OF THE COVENANT
OF QUIET ENJOYMENT
4) NEGLIGENCE
5) VIOLATION OF CIVIL
CODE SECTION 1942.4
6) PRIVATE NUISANCE.
On 2/7/22, plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal of
some plaintiffs.
MP
Positions
Guardians ad litem for several minor plaintiffs
petition for approval of minors’ compromises, on bases including the following:
·
Defendants offered to settle with minor
claims in the amount of $7,500.00 each.
·
The remaining balance of $5,538.68 would
be deposited in a blocked account of a financial institution: JP Morgan Chase, 401 E. Ocean Blvd., Long
Beach, CA 90802.
·
Over the counter ointments, creams and
rubbing alcohol were applied to claimants’ skin to relieve itchiness due to
insect bites. Non-prescription allergy and cough relief medications were
administered as needed for allergy symptoms. Claimants were not treated by a
medical doctor for these symptoms or injuries, and they have fully recovered.
·
Attorney fees per claimant are $1,826.23.
·
The minors are:
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.
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.