Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV04037, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04037    Hearing Date: February 4, 2025    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

 

Sheila Zacarias, et al.  

 

 

 

Plaintiffs, 

 

Case No.: 

 

 

23STCV04037 

 

vs. 

 

 

Tentative Ruling 

 

 

LIH Harbor Magnolia LP, et al.,  

 

 

 

Defendants. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: February 4, 2025 

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter 

(3) Petitions for Minor’s Compromise 

Moving Party: Minor Plaintiffs  

Responding Party: None 

 

T/R:    THE PETITIONS 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 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.)   

 

Petitioners seek court approval for a settlement from Defendant LIH Harbor Magnolia LP under which the minor claimants would receive $10,000.00 each, from a total settlement of $525,000.00. $2,451.75 in attorneys’ fees and $193.01 in litigation costs will be deducted from the minor claimants’ settlement amounts for a net settlement for $7,355.24. The settlement funds will be placed in blocked accounts. 

 

This is a landlord tenant action involving allegations of uninhabitable conditions.  The individual settlements are fair in light of the alleged injuries sustained by claimants. The Court finds that the attorney’s fees and costs are reasonable.  

 

The petitions are GRANTED.