Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case 19PSCV00306 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

This is an unlawful detainer action involving the premises located at 13065 Amar Road, Baldwin Park, CA 91706 (“subject property”).

On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff Lauren Celine Torres (“Torres”) filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action for Unlawful Detainer against Jose Lopez (“Lopez”), Maria Zarate (“Zarate”), All Unknown/Unnamed Persons Claiming Possession of the Premises and Does 1-10.

On April 3, 2019, Lopez and Zarate filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Torres, Adam McDaniel (“McDaniel”) and Does 1-50 for:

On April 12, 2019, this case was deemed related to Case No. 18WCUD03089; this case was designated as the lead case. On November 5, 2019, the cases were consolidated.

On November 5, 2019, McDaniel filed a Notice of Appeal as to the court’s September 12, 2019 order denying his anti-SLAPP motion. On July 27, 2021, the remittitur was filed (affirmed).

On January 31, 2022, McDaniel filed a Notice of Appeal as to the court’s December 3, 2021 order on anti-SLAPP attorney’s fees.

On May 24, 2022, a conditional “Notice of Settlement of Entire Case” was filed.

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (Prob. Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) California 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.” (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) Rule 7.950 states that the Petition must be filed 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).

Petitioner Maria Zarate (“Petitioner”) seeks court approval of a settlement between minor claimants Rosa M. Correa (“Rosa”), Guadalupe Correa (“Guadalupe”), Elizabeth Lopez (“Elizabeth”) and Jose Lopez Jr. (“Jose Jr.”) (collectively, “minor claimants”), on the one hand, and Torres and McDaniel, on the other hand, in the total amount of $0.

The court queries why the instant petitions have been filed in the first instance, inasmuch as minor claimants are not parties to the lawsuit. Petitioner represents, in each of the respective petitions, that the claims of the minor claimants are the subject of a “pending action or proceeding” and then references the instant case; however, only Lopez and Zarate individually are named plaintiffs in the operative complaint filed April 3, 2019. Minor claimants are not named anywhere in the complaint. Code of Civil Procedure § 372, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that “[w]hen a minor, a person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions, or a person for whom a conservator has been appointed is a party, that person shall appear either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in each case . . .” The minor claimants do not appear to have a “disputed claim” for purposes of Probate Code § 3500[1]. Petitioner appears to concede as much in Attachment 18b(8) of each of the respective petitions, by stating “Claimant is not a party to this lawsuit. The filing of a minor’s compromise is part of the Parties’ settlement agreement.”

The court will hear further from Petitioner’s counsel in this regard at the time of the hearing.

[1] Probate Code § 3500 provides, in relevant part, that “[w]hen a minor has a disputed claim for damages, money, or other property and does not have a guardian of the estate, the following persons have the right to compromise, or to execute a covenant not to sue on or a covenant not to enforce judgment on, the claim, unless the claim is against such person or persons: (1) Either parent if the parents of the minor are not living separate and apart. (2) The parent having the care, custody, or control of the minor if the parents of the minor are living separate and apart. . .”