Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 19STCV30869, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.


Case Number: 19STCV30869    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

 

KARINA PANDURO, et al.;

 

                             Plaintiffs,

 

                              vs.

 

2416 BELLEVUE AVENUE INC;

 

                              Defendant(s).

 

Case No.:  19STCV30869

DEPARTMENT 45

 

 

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

 

 

Action Filed:  08/30/19

First Amended Compl. Filed:  02/18/22

Trial Date:  None Set

 

 

 

Hearing Date:             February 20, 2024

Moving Party:             (1) Claimant Leah Rivas, a minor by and through guardian ad

                                          litem Karina Panduro

(2) Claimant Bianca Gomez, a minor by and through guardian ad

      litem Victor Hugo Gomez Oregon

Responding Party:      None

 

Petitions to Approve Compromise of Pending Action

 

The court considered the petition papers. No opposition was received.

The court GRANTS the petitions to approve compromise of pending action of claimant Leah Rivas, a minor by and through guardian ad litem Karina Panduro, and claimant Bianca Gomez, a minor by and through guardian ad          litem Victor Hugo Gomez Oregon. The court orders that, in accordance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.953(a), a certified or filed endorsed copy of the order must be delivered to a manager at the financial institution where the funds are to be deposited, and that a receipt from the financial institution must be promptly filed with the court, acknowledging receipt of both the funds deposited and the order for deposit of funds.

 

 

Background

On August 30, 2019, plaintiffs Karina Panduro, Blanca Vargas, Daniel A. Hernandez, Nohora Alejandra Montoya Amaya, Blanca T. Acosta, Victor Gomez, Bianca Gomez (a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Victor Gomez), Maria P. Gomez, Carlos E. Panduro Gomez, and Leah Rivas (a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Karina Panduro) filed this action. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on February 18, 2022 against defendant 2416 Bellevue Avenue, Inc., alleging causes of action for (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 Civ. Code § 1942.4; (6) Private Nuisance; and (7) Declaratory Relief.

            The FAC alleges the following: From June 28, 2005 to the present, Defendant has been the owner and manager of the apartment building located at 2416 Bellevue Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90026. (FAC ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs have been tenants in the apartment building for the last four years, residing in units 108, 111, and 217. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Given their landlord-tenant relationship and residential lease contract, Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty to comply with building, fire, health, and safe codes, ordinances, regulations, and other laws and to maintain the premises in a habitable condition. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Defendant breached this duty and the implied warranty of habitability by failing to correct substandard conditions, such as garbage disposal deficiencies, electrical deficiencies, plumbing deficiencies, lack of hot water, water leaks and water damages on ceilings, mold and mildew on floors and walls, rodent and pest infestations, security and safety deficiencies, storage deficiencies, and refuse disposal deficiencies. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.) Defendant also failed to address Plaintiffs’ loss of use of the premises for various periods of time from February 2014 to the present. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

            The apartment building has not been habitable or tenantable and, therefore, has had a lesser rental value than the amount Defendant demanded. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs have paid full or partial rent to Defendant, except where legally excused to do so due to the building’s uninhabitable condition. (Id.)

Claimant Leah Rivas, a minor by and through guardian ad litem Karina Panduro, and claimant Bianca Gomez, a minor by and through guardian ad litem Victor Hugo Gomez Oregon, filed petitions to approve compromise of pending action on December 14, 2023. No opposition was received.

 

Discussion

Claimant Leah Rivas, a minor by and through guardian ad litem Karina Panduro, and claimant Bianca Gomez, a minor by and through guardian ad litem Victor Hugo Gomez Oregon, each petition for approval of compromise of pending action.

Court approval is required to establish an enforceable settlement of a minor’s claim. (Prob. Code, §§ 2504, 3500, 3600, et seq.; CCP, § 372.) Indeed, until a petition for such approval is granted by the court, there is no final settlement, and any settlement agreement therefore is voidable. (Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1603-05.) Petitions for approval of the compromise of a pending action are governed by Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 7.950–7.955 and Probate Code §§ 2504, et seq. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.950 provides that a petition “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.” Rule 7.950 states that the Petition must be filed on Judicial Council Form MC-350.

In addition to approval of the settlement, attorney fees to be paid for representing the minor or incompetent must be approved by the court. (Fam. Code, § 6602; Prob. Code, § 3601.)  The court must use a reasonable fee standard when approving and allowing the amount of attorney's fees payable from money or property paid or to be paid for the benefit of a minor or a person with a disability. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.955(a)-(b).)

The court reviewed the petitions and settlements and finds that they are fair and reasonable. The petitions herein were properly filed on the Judicial Council Forms and are verified. (Petitions, p. 10.) Petitioners properly include in sections 10 and 11 of the MC-350 form the total amount settled, $296,000, and the amount paid to each claimant, $4,000. Sections 14-16 show that the Claimants would each receive a net payment of $2,776.17, after total attorney’s fees and expenses (other than medical). The petitions indicate no medical expenses. (Id., § 12.)

The petitions show that Claimants agreed to settle their claims arising out of the alleged uninhabitable conditions on the subject property, including but not limited to cockroach infestation, bed bug infestation, and rodent infestation. (Petitions, § 5.)

The Claimants’ injuries include bed bug bites, lack of sleep, and allergies such as running nose and coughs. (Id., § 6.) Claimants received over-the-counter ointments, creams, and rubbing alcohol to relieve itchiness due to insect bites. (Id., § 7.) Further, Claimants received non-prescription allergy and cough relief medications for allergy symptoms. (Id.) Claimants have recovered completely from the effects of the injuries, with no permanent injuries. (Id., § 8(a).)

The petitions also establish Petitioners’ counsel’s name, state bar number, law firm, and business address (Petitions, § 17(b)); that Petitioners’ counsel has not received attorney’s fees or other compensation in addition to that requested in these petitions (id., § 17(c)); that Petitioners’ counsel did not become concerned with this matter, directly or indirectly, at the instance of a party against whom the claim is asserted or a party's insurance carrier (id., § 17(d)); that Petitioners’ counsel is representing or employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in this matter (id., § 17(e)); and that Petitioners’ counsel does not expect to receive attorney’s fees or other compensation in addition to that requested in the petitions (id., § 17(f)). (Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 7.951(1)-(5).) Further, Petitioners’ counsel includes the parties’ Attorney Retainer Agreement (Petitions, § 17(a)(2), Attachments 17a.) (Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 7.951(6).)

The amount of attorney’s fees and costs requested for each Claimant is $925.39. (Petitions, § 13(a).) Thus, the amount of attorney’s fees is approximately 23 percent of the recovery for each claimant. Petitioners are requesting costs of $298.44 for each Claimant. (Id., § 13(b).) Under the parties’ Legal Services Agreement, Petitioners’ counsel is to receive 40 percent of the net recovery if the recovery is obtained after the filing of the lawsuit. (Id., § 17(a)(2), Attachments 17a [Agreement, ¶ 7(b)].) Thus, the amount that Petitioners’ counsel is requesting is within the percentage of net recovery set forth in the parties’ Legal Services Agreement. (The court notes Petitioners’ counsel attests that only 25 percent is taken from minors (id., § 13(a), Attachment 13a [Chapman Decl., ¶ 4]), but this does not appear to be specified in the Legal Services Agreement.)

Petitioners’ counsel attests that he has practiced law in California for over 27 years, was a founding member of his current firm, and was a partner at Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar in Long Beach, California. (Id. [Chapman Decl., ¶ 1].) Petitioners’ counsel has handled hundreds of litigation matters over the years and has resolved each of them through settlement, arbitration, or trial. (Id.) Petitioners’ counsel declares they conducted numerous client meetings, site inspections, depositions, mediation sessions, and court appearances in the course of this litigation. (Id. [Chapman Decl., ¶ 5].) Petitioners’ counsel attests they propounded and responded to written discovery for each plaintiff client. (Id.) Petitioners’ counsel estimates the average time expended to prosecute this matter was about 25 hours for each plaintiff. (Id.) Petitioners’ counsel attests this case involved evaluating complex coverage issues, such as multiple policy exclusions and the application of multiple insurance policies for multiple owners. (Id.)

Given the services performed, the amount of fees in proportion thereto, Petitioners’ counsel’s experience and skill, and the contingent risk to Petitioners’ counsel, the court finds the amount of attorney’s fees and costs requested in this case is reasonable. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.955.)

The petitions state that there is no guardianship of the estate of the Claimants. (Petitions, § 18(b).) Petitioners request, for each claimant, that the court orders $2776.17 be deposited in insured accounts in one or more financial institutions in this state, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the court. (Id., § 18(b)(2).) The name, branch, and address of the depository are as follows: JPMorgan Chase, 401 E. Ocean Blvd, Long Beach, CA 90802. (Id., § 18(b)(2), Attachment 18b(2).) The court finds that Petitioner’s requests are proper and they shall be ordered in accordance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.953(a).

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the petitions to approve compromise of pending action of claimant Leah Rivas, a minor by and through guardian ad litem Karina Panduro, and claimant Bianca Gomez, a minor by and through guardian ad litem Victor Hugo Gomez Oregon. The court orders that, in accordance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.953(a), a certified or filed endorsed copy of the order must be delivered to a manager at the financial institution where the funds are to be deposited, and that a receipt from the financial institution must be promptly filed with the court, acknowledging receipt of both the funds deposited and the order for deposit of funds.

 

It is so ordered.

 

Dated: February 20, 2024

 

_______________________

ROLF M. TREU

Judge of the Superior Court