Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV22890, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV22890 Hearing Date: February 24, 2023 Dept: 54
|
Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles |
|||
|
Valerie Sierra,
et al., |
Plaintiffs, |
Case No.: |
22STCV22890 |
|
vs. |
|
Tentative
Ruling |
|
|
Ronen Henn, et
al., |
Defendants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing Date:
February 24, 2023
Department 54,
Judge Maurice A. Leiter
(3) Petitions for
Minor’s Compromise
Moving
Party: Minor
Plaintiffs
Responding
Party: None
T/R: THE PETITION ARE 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
petitions. 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.)
Petitioners seeks court
approval for a settlement from Defendants Ronen Henn and Marmont Investments
under which minor Plaintiffs each would receive $5,000.00 out of a total
settlement of $75,000.00. Attorneys’
fees of $1,231.78 and costs of $72.89 will be deducted from the minor
claimants’ settlement amounts. Minor
claimants’ net proceeds are $3,695.33 each. The settlement funds will be
delivered to the claimants’ parents.
This is a landlord-tenant
action involving allegations of uninhabitable conditions. The individual settlements are fair in light
of alleged injuries sustained by claimants. The attorney’s fees are reasonable.