Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV44048, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV44048 Hearing Date: January 23, 2024 Dept: 54
| 
   Superior Court
  of California County of Los
  Angeles  | 
 |||
| 
   Cherise Rogers, et al.,   | 
  
   Plaintiffs,  | 
  
   Case No.:  | 
  
   21STCV44048  | 
 
| 
   vs.  | 
  
   | 
  
   Tentative Ruling  | 
 |
| 
   Michael Wilk, et
  al.,   | 
  
   Defendants.  | 
  
   | 
  
   | 
 
| 
   | 
  
   | 
  
   | 
  
   | 
 
Hearing Date: January 23, 2024
Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter
Petition for Minor’s Compromise
Moving Party: Minor Plaintiff Divine Leggett
Responding Party: None
T/R:     THE PETITION IS GRANTED.
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 fully disclose 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.)  
Petitioner seeks court approval for a
settlement from Defendants Michael Wilk, A&M Real Estate, Shelly A.
McClellan and Bradly Homan under which the minor claimant would receive $68,750.00
out of a total settlement of $137,500.00. $17,187.50 in attorneys’ fees will be
deducted from the minor claimants’ settlement amounts for a net settlement of
$51,562.50. The settlement funds will be placed in a blocked account.
This is a landlord tenant action
involving allegations of uninhabitable conditions.   Having
reviewed the petition, the Court finds that the individual settlement fair in
light of the alleged injuries sustained by claimant. The Court finds attorney’s
fees and costs to be reasonable. 
The petition is GRANTED.