Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case Number: 21STCV36031, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV36031, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36031 Hearing Date: December 8, 2023 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability

Moving Party: Plaintiff/Guardian ad Litem Jeanette Martinez

Resp. Party: None

SUBJECT: Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability

Moving Party: Plaintiff/Guardian ad Litem Jeanette Martinez

Resp. Party: None

SUBJECT: Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability

Moving Party: Plaintiff/Guardian ad Litem Jeanette Martinez

Resp. Party: None

SUBJECT: Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Moving Party: Defendant Forward Progress Management Real Estate Fund II LLC

Resp. Party: None

The December 11, 2023 hearing on the Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is ADVANCED to December 8, 2023. Any party that wishes to contest this may do so at the hearing on December 8, 2023.

Plaintiff/Guardian ad Litem Jeanette Martinez’s Petitions are GRANTED, with the one change indicated above — i.e., that no attorney’s fees or costs are to be subtracted from the $5,000.00 awarded to each of the minor plaintiffs.

The Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On September 30, 2021, Plaintiffs Jeanette Martinez, Javier Martinez, Ayleen Giselle Martinez, Romualdo Matthew Martinez, and Jeavier Noah Martinez filed their Complaint against Defendant Forward Progress Management Real Estate Fund II LLC on causes of action arising from Plaintiffs’ tenancy with Defendant.

On November 9 and 10, 2021, the Court appointed Plaintiff Jeanette Martinez as the guardian ad litem for Plaintiffs Ayleen Giselle Martinez, Romualdo Matthew Martinez, and Jeavier Noah Martinez.

On October 5, 2023, for each of the minor plaintiffs, Plaintiff/Guardian ad Litem Jeanette Martinez filed Judicial Council Form MC-350, Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability. With each of the Petitions, Plaintiff/Guardian ad Litem concurrently filed Judicial Council Form MC-351, which is a proposed order.

No oppositions or other responses have been filed to the Petitions.

On October 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed Judicial Council Form CM-200, Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.

On November 15, 2023, Defendant filed its Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. Defendant concurrently filed its Proposed Order.

On November 30, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Non-Opposition and Request that the Court Grant the Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.

ANALYSIS:

I. Preliminary Issues

The Court first considers the Petitions for Minor’s Compromise. The Court then considers the Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.

The Petitions are scheduled to be heard on December 8, 2023. The Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is scheduled to be heard on December 11, 2023. These items consider similar issues, and the Parties have indicated that these items will not be contested.

The Court ADVANCES the December 11, 2023 hearing on the Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement to December 8, 2023. Any party that wishes to contest this may do so at the hearing on December 8, 2023.

II. Petitions for Minor’s Compromise

A. Legal Standard

“The guardian or conservator of the estate or guardian ad litem so appearing for any minor, person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions, or person for whom a conservator has been appointed shall have power, with the approval of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, to compromise the same, to agree to the order or judgment to be entered therein for or against the ward or conservatee, and to satisfy any judgment or order in favor of the ward or conservatee or release or discharge any claim of the ward or conservatee pursuant to that compromise. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 372, subd. (a)(3).)

“A petition for court approval of a compromise or covenant not to sue under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with rules 7.950 or 7.950.5, 7.951, and 7.952.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1384(a).)

“A petition for court approval of a compromise of, or a covenant not to sue or enforce judgment on, a minor's disputed claim; a compromise or settlement of a pending action or proceeding to which a minor or person with a disability is a party; or the disposition of the proceeds of a judgment for a minor or person with a disability under Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600-3613 or Code of Civil Procedure section 372 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, covenant, settlement, or disposition. Except as provided in rule 7.950.5, the petition must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)

“In all cases under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 or Probate Code sections 3600-3601, unless the court has approved the fee agreement in advance, 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)(1).)

“The court must give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made, except where the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability contemplated that the attorney's fee would be affected by later events.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955(a)(2).)

“A petition requesting court approval and allowance of an attorney's fee under (a) must include a declaration from the attorney that addresses the factors listed in (b) that are applicable to the matter before the court.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955(c).)

B. Discussion

Plaintiff/Guardian ad Litem Jeanette Martinez petitions the Court for approval of a compromise that includes: (1) Plaintiff Ayleen Giselle Martinez, who is an eight-year-old minor; (2) Romualdo Matthew Martinez, who is a four-year-old minor; and (3) Jeavier Noah Martinez, who is a two-year-old minor.

Among other things, the Gross Settlement Amount is $215,000.00, which consists of a $100,000.00 payment to Plaintiff Jeanette Martinez, a $100,000.00 payment to Plaintiff Javier Martinez, a $5,000.00 payment to Plaintiff Ayleen Giselle Martinez, a $5,000.00 payment to Plaintiff Romualdo Matthew Martinez, and a $5,000.00 payment to Jeavier Noah Martinez. (Petitions, Item 11.b.(5).) According to the Petitions, the difference in the amounts per plaintiff is because the adult plaintiffs are the ones who suffered significant damages, paid the rents, purchased properties damaged by the condition in the unit, and so on. (Petitions, Attachment 17(e).)

According to the attached Attorney Client Contingency Fee Agreements, the percentage of attorney’s fees to be assessed from each of the minor plaintiffs is 25% of their respective awards (and an even higher 40% for the adult plaintiffs). (Petitions, Exh. A, p. 1; see also Petitions, Decl. Oronsaye, ¶ 16.) No costs or expenses are assigned to the minors in this case. (Petitions, Decl. Oronsaye, ¶ 7.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 372 and California Rules of Court, rules 7.950 and 7.955, the Court finds that the Compromise is generally reasonable and that the applicable procedures have been followed.

The Court will grant the petition with the following change: the attorneys are not to assess any attorney’s fees or costs against the funds allotted to the minors. In other words, each of the minors is to receive the full $5,000.00 awarded.

With the above change, the Court GRANTS the Petition.

C. Conclusion

III. Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

A. Legal Standard

“Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors, upon giving notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).)

“In the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).)

“The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counteraffidavits filed in response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (b).)

B. Discussion

Defendant moves the Court to issue an order determining that the settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant was reached in good faith and thus they are protected from any present or future claims against this Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. (Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, p. 7:18–25.)

Among other things, Defense Counsel declares: (1) Plaintiffs and Defendant have come to a settlement; (2) Plaintiffs will dismiss with prejudice their Complaint and have signed a settlement agreement and general release; (3) the Parties will pay their own costs and fees in this matter; (4) the settlement was reached after the Parties engaged in negotiations; and (5) Defendant submits that its settlement with Plaintiffs is in good faith. (Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, Decl. Fornwalt, ¶¶ 4–7.)

Plaintiffs agree with Defendant.

Although the parties agree, Defendants are misinterpreting CCP §877.6. As stated above:

Pursuant to the language of the statute, a motion for good faith settlement is only used when there are two or more joint tortfeasors. In this case, there is only one defendant and hence a motion for good faith determination is neither required nor needed.

Further, Defendant’s motion asks the Court to rule that

“Any and all past, present, or future claims by any person or entity against moving defendant for equitable comparative contribution, total, partial, or comparative indemnity or contribution, declaratory relief, or for implied contractual indemnity in connection with, or arising out of, the circumstances which are the subject of this action, are forever barred .” (Motion, p. 2:8-12.)

During oral argument, Plaintiffs’ counsel told the Court that the settlement agreement precluded Plaintiffs from filing further actions against the current owner of the building, and that Plaintiffs had no intention of doing so. Therefore, according to Plaintiffs counsel, this motion was moot.

Also during oral argument, Defense counsel argued that Gackstetter v. Frawley (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1257, was authority for this Court to grant its motion for good faith determination. It is true that in Gacksetter, the trial court granted a motion for good faith determination against a party not named in the underlying lawsuit. However, the propriety of the trial Court granting that motion was not addressed by the Court of Appeal. Hence Gacksetter is not authority for this Court granting the Motion. (See, e.g., Hinerfeld-Ward, Inc. v. Lipian (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 86, 101 [“It is elementary that the language used in any opinion is to be understood in the light of the facts and the issue then before the court. Further. cases are not authority for propositions not considered.”].)

Defendant also requests that the Court rule that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. (Motion, p. 2:13.) The parties do not need a Court ruling; rather, the parties can agree that Plaintiffs will simply dismiss this case themselves upon signing the settlement agreement.

C. Conclusion

The Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is DENIED.