Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case 21GDCV01111 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Anush Aghazaryan and Akop Palamutian, and their minor children, Hovik Palamutian and K. Palamutian, allege that during their tenancy in a unit of leased premises which were negligently and improperly maintained by defendants, the premises became uninhabitable due to housing conditions including, but not limited to, bedbug infestation on the premises and in the subject unit.

Plaintiffs allege that although defendants had actual notice and knowledge of the untenantable conditions, defendants failed to repair or ameliorate the conditions at the premises, and ignored plaintiffs’ repeated complaints and written notices, eventually evolving into agencies issuing orders noticing defendants of various housing and code violations within the subject unit. Plaintiffs allege that despite having ample notice, defendants failed to repair the defective conditions, and that as a result of the failure to maintain the premises and unit in a decent, safe and habitable condition, plaintiffs have suffered personal injury, emotional distress, loss of personal property, and loss in the value of their leasehold.

On July 26, 2022, the matter was called for hearing for an Order to Show Cause Re: Mandatory Settlement Conference Qualification and Status Conference Re: Mediation and Discovery, and counsel informed the court that the case had settled.

On September 9, 2022, the court heard Petitions for Approval of Compromise of Claim as to the minor plaintiff and plaintiff person with a disability Hovik Palamutian. The petitions were approved and the balance of the proceeds from a $5,000 settlement with each of the plaintiffs with defendants Raintree Glendale, LLC and Cirrus Asset Management, Inc. was ordered placed into a blocked account, in the sum of $3,750.

Rule 7.953 provides for procedures for acknowledgement of receipt of funds by a financial institution, and orders for deposit in connection with a minor who will attain the age of majority on a definite date, which are not at issue here.

A petition for the withdrawal of funds deposited for a minor or a person with a disability must be verified and must include the identity of the depository, a showing of the amounts previously withdrawn, a statement of the balance on deposit at the time of the filing of the petition, and a justification for the withdrawal.

Petitioner indicates that the withdrawal of the funds for Hovik Palamutian, a disabled person, now twenty years old, is justified because Palamutian has developed dietary restrictions, including an intolerance to gluten which requires a gluten-free diet, which is more expensive than a regular diet. [Attach. 1, Aghazaryan Decl., para. 3]. Petitioner estimates he spends approximately $450 per month on Palamutian’s dietary needs. [Id.]

Petitioner also indicates that Palamutian needs a new bedroom set, which will cost approximately $3,019.18, excluding shipping and taxes, and also needs a new mattress, which will cost approximately $1,499.00, excluding shipping and taxes. [Attach. 1, Aghazaryan Decl., paras. 4, 5]. Petitioner has attached copies of screenshots of the bedroom set and mattress petitioner plans to buy for Palamutian. [Aghazaryan Decl., Exs. A, B]. The petition indicates that the total approximate cost for the bedroom set, and mattress will be $4,518.98, necessitating the need to withdraw $3,750 from the account to help fund the expenses, while petitioner is also incurring extra costs for the new dietary needs. [Aghazaryan Decl., para. 6].

In S.V. v. Delano Union Elementary School District (2020 USDC E.C. Cal.) 2020 WL 4476093 at *3, the federal district court applied California state law in approving a petition for reasonable funds to purchase a computer for the minor, “as doing so would be in the minor’s best interests.” The federal district court emphasized that, in connection with petitions to withdraw funds in the case of minors, while the court has a duty to protect the minor’s property from wrongful dissipation by a parent, “the need for doing so should be evaluated in each case and the method of safeguarding should be tailored to the circumstances.” S.V., at 2, quoting Christensen v. Superior Court (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 139, 144. The district court in S.V. noted that a previous petition to withdraw funds had been denied because the petition sought to use the funds to support the family. S.V., at 2.

Here, the court will discuss at the hearing whether it will find that the showing submitted by petitioner is sufficient to establish a “justification for the withdrawal” under Rule 7.954 (a), and would be in the best interest of the person with a disability, given the purpose of the settlement, the court’s previous order that the funds be placed in a blocked account, and any continuing need for holding the funds in reserve for Hovik Palamutian, a person with a disability. The court is concerned that the withdrawal will apparently deplete the account. The proposed use of the funds could be for general support of the family, not specifically for the Hovik Palamutian.

It is also not clear why the petition represents that the current balance in the account is $3,750, when it appears there could be some interest accrued, and the petition does not expressly seek the “Balance of account.” [Petition, paras. 6(d), and 7].

Petition for Withdrawal of Funds from Blocked Account is GRANTED. The Court finds the Petition complies with CRC Rule 7.954, and sufficiently establishes justification for the withdrawal. However, the court will inquire at the hearing whether funds could be characterized as general family support.

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers free audio and video appearance. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear. With respect to the wearing of face masks, Department D recognizes that currently, the Los Angeles Department of Public Health strongly recommends masks indoors, especially when interacting with individuals whose vaccination status is unknown; for individuals who have a health condition that puts them at higher risk for severe illness; individuals who live with someone who is at higher risk; and for individuals who are around children who are not yet eligible for vaccines. In accordance with this guidance, it is strongly recommended that anyone personally appearing in Department D wear a face mask. The Department D Judge and court staff will continue to wear face masks. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.