Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV44063, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44063    Hearing Date: November 9, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 9, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Petitions for Minor/Person with a Disability’s Compromise

Moving Party: Minor Plaintiff Brandon Diaz and Disabled Plaintiff Yeni Reyes

Responding Party: None

T/R:     THE PETITIONS ARE GRANTED ON THE CONDITIONS DISCUSSED BELOW.

PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

Compromises of disputed claims brought by minors are governed in part by CCP § 372. The statute allows a guardian ad litem to appear in court on behalf of a minor claimant and gives the guardian ad litem the power to compromise the minor’s claim “with the approval of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending.”  A petition for court approval of a compromise must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise or covenant.  (CRC Rule 7.950.)

CRC Rule 7.952(a) requires the attendance of the petitioner and claimant at the hearing on the compromise of the claim unless the court for good causes dispenses with their personal appearance.

“Neither section 372 nor the California Rules of Court (rules 7.950 & 7.952) contemplates a noticed motion and adversary hearing when court approval of a minor's compromise is sought. Although we need not decide the question, it would appear that a petition to approve or disapprove a minor's compromise may be decided by the superior court, ex parte, in chambers.”  (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1337.) 

Claimants move for approval of a settlement with Defendants Shlomo Botach and S. Botach Management in which claimants each would receive $12,429.00 out of a total settlement of $87,000.00. Attorneys’ fees of $4,971.00 and costs of $843.00 will be deducted from disabled claimant Reyes’ settlement amount and attorneys’ fees of $3,728.00 and costs of $843.00 will be deducted from minor claimant Diaz’s settlement.  Disabled claimant's net proceeds are $6,615.00 Minor claimant’s net proceeds are $7,858.00. The settlement funds will be deposited into blocked accounts.

This is a landlord-tenant action. The Court finds that the individual settlements are fair in light of the alleged injuries sustained by claimants. But the Court finds that a 40% contingency fee on disabled claimant's settlement is excessive. Counsel’s declaration stating “a lot of legal work was performed” does not justify a 40% fee for disabled claimant, when minor Plaintiff’s fee is only 30%. Counsel may recover a 30% fee for disabled claimant.