Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 21STCV14103, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14103    Hearing Date: September 2, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioners’ petitions to approve minors’ compromises are granted.  An Order to Show Cause as to Proof of Purchase of the Annuities is scheduled for December 1, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. 

Petitioner Maria Alejandra Ibarra Lopez, on behalf of Claimants Yvette Guerrero-Ibarra, Eduardo Jr. Guerrero Ibarra, and Alan Guerrero-Ibarra; Petitioner Cecilia Ruiz Nuno, on behalf of Claimants Julie Karolina Bedoy and Rodrigo Antonio Bedoy; and Petitioner Carmen Celia Garrafa Silva, on behalf of Claimants Giselle Isabel Perez-Garrafa and Kamila Daniela Perez-Garrafa petition the Court to approve minors’ compromises in this settlement. 

I.               Background

Petitioners Maria, Cecilia, and Carmen, individually and each as a guardian ad litem for Yvette, Eduardo Jr., Alan, Julie, Rodrigo, Giselle, and Kamila, together with other named Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants Baldev S. Kler, Daljit K. Kler, Pama Management Inc, Regency Management Inc, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, on April 14, 2021, for (1) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4 (2) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability, (3) private nuisance, (4) Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., (5) negligence, and (6) retaliation and breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment at residential property located at 3154–3164 E. Banning Ave. [specifically 3154 Unit C, 3158 Unit C, and 3158 Unit F], Lynwood, California 90262, Assessor’s Parcel Number 6168-013-012, owned and/or maintained by Defendants, where Plaintiffs were tenants.  (Compl.  ¶¶ 1–3.)  Pursuant to the instant petitions, Defendants have agreed to pay Plaintiffs to settle the claims.  (Petitions, ¶ 2.) 

A notice of settlement was filed on May 31, 2022.  (Notice Settlement, p. 1.) Defendants agreed to pay a total settlement amount of $2,400,000. (Castelblanco Decl. ¶ 6.) The Settlement Agreement apportions $40,000 to each of the seven minors; after a deduction oof 25% for attorneys’ fees, $30,000 will be placed, on behalf of each minor, in an interest-bearing annuity with Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company.  (Castelblanco Decl. ¶ 9.)  All procedural requirements have been met, as Petitioners have completed a Judicial Council Form MC-351 on the minors’ behalf. 

On July 12, 2022, Petitioners filed seven Petitions for Approvals of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with Disability.

II.             Legal Standard

Compromises of disputed claims brought by minors are governed in part by Code of Civil Procedure section 372.  The statute allows guardians ad litem to appear in court on behalf of minor claimants and gives the guardian ad litem the power to compromise minors’ claims “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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)  California Rules of Court 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.

California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(a), requires the Court to use “a reasonable fee standard” when approving and allowing the amount of attorneys’ fees payable from money to be paid for the benefit of a person with a disability and requires that the Court “give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor . . . and 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 . . . contemplated that the attorney’s fee would be affected by later events.” 

California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b), sets forth fourteen nonexclusive factors the Court may consider in determining a reasonable attorney’s fee.  California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(c), requires that a petition requesting Court approval and allowance of an attorney’s fee under rule 7.955(a) must include a declaration from the attorney that addresses the factors listed in rule 7.955(b) that are applicable to the matter before the Court.

III.           Analysis

Petitioners seek court approval for a settlement under which each minor Claimant would receive $30,000.  These amounts reflect payment amounts to each minor Claimant after deduction of attorneys’ fees for $10,000, representing 25% of each minor Claimant’s settlement.  (Castelblanco Decl. ¶ 10.)  All costs are being borne by adult Claimants.  (Castelblanco Decl. ¶ 12c.)

This is a habitability suit, in which minor Claimants lived in uninhabitable conditions which caused loss of sleep, loss of appetite, disgust, and emotional distress; symptoms were treated with medication and rest.  (Petitions, ¶ 4.)

The Declaration of Eric E. Castelblanco provides sufficient support for the reasonableness of the compromise.  Castelblanco declares that per the Plaintiffs’ agreement, Defendants’ total settlement allocates less to minor Claimants than to the adults because a material component of the damages sustained by the adults was their frustration in approaching management and trying to have problems fixed, being forced to engage in self-help, complaining to the City and County inspectors, and the frustration of seeing the minors live in substandard conditions while the adults were working to support their families.  (Castelblanco Decl. ¶ 7.) Therefore, Counsel Castelblanco states it is reasonable to allocate less of the settlement proceeds to the minor claimants than the adult claimants.  (Castelblanco Decl. ¶ 8.)

The adult Claimants are also the parents of minor Claimants; the adult claimants will receive a net amount of the settlement totaling $1,146,611.32 after attorneys’ fees and expenses are reduced from their gross portion.  (Castelblanco Decl. ¶ 10.)  When the adults’ portion is divided across the minor Claimants’ three apartment units, the result is $382,203.77 per apartment unit.  (Castelblanco Decl. ¶ 10.)  On the whole, the compromise is reasonable considering the combined minor Claimants’ portions with adult Claimants’ portions.

Counsel Castelblanco discusses the applicable factors that the Court may consider in support of the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees request set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b).  (Castelblanco Decl. ¶ 12.) The issue here relates to habitability issues, which counsel’s office has had extensive experience handling hundreds of similar cases; there are seventeen plaintiffs total, seven of which are minors, and counsel is charging the adults a 45% contingency fee, which would not have been charged if there had been no recovery; the office is charging each minor a 25% contingency fee, and all costs are borne by the adults with the effective rate of the entire case at 42.67% rather than 45%.  (Castelblanco Decl. ¶ 12.)  In his supplemental declaration, counsel details the work performed.  (Castelblanco Supp. Decl. ¶ 2.) 

Petitioners also note the instant petitions satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(a), which requires the Court to consider the terms of any representation agreement and the minor’s representative as well as the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made.  (Petitions ¶¶ 5–8.)  Petitioners note that they understand that the minors will be allocated $280,000 of the settlement funds, that Counsel Castelblanco is charging 25% attorney’s fees on each minor’s recovery, and that they believe this amount is reasonable under the circumstances.  (Petitions ¶ 5.)  Additionally, Petitioners understand that the litigation costs of the action will be paid by the adults and no deductions or costs will be deducted from the minors’ share of the settlement.  (Petitions ¶ 6.)  The requested attorneys’ fees in the amount of 25% of each of the seven minor Claimant’s settlements are reasonable and sufficiently supported. 

In addition, Petitioners submitted a list of the minor Plaintiffs and their respective guardians ad litem who signed their retainer agreements and approved their Petitions to Approve Minor’s Compromise.  (Petitions, Attachs., 17a, 17e.)  This list clearly identifies the names of the individuals who signed the submitted retainer agreements on behalf of the minor Claimants. As such, the submitted copies of the written attorney fee agreements with Claimants are sufficient and support the attorneys’ fees request.

IV.          Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the petitions to approve the minors’ compromises are granted. 

Dated:  September ____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court