Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 19STCV27125, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV27125    Hearing Date: September 2, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Plaintiffs’ Petitions for an Order Approving Compromise of the Claim for a Minor are GRANTED as to all minors.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

This is an action for uninhabitability of a rental property. The Complaint alleges as follows.

Since approximately January 2018, Plaintiffs Victor Montes (“Victor”) and Veronica Montes (“Veronica” and together with Victor, “Parents”) lived in a residential unit at 15351 Woodruff Pl., Bellflower CA (the “Subject Property”) with their children Henry Montes (“Henry”), Victor Montes, Jr. (“Victor Jr.”) and Marjorie Montes (“Marjorie”, together with Henry and Victor, “Children”, and together with Parents, “Plaintiffs”.)[1] (Compl. ¶ 2.) Defendants PAMA Properties, LP, PAMA IV Properties, Inc., and PAMA Management, Inc. (“PAMA”) managed, operated, and/or owned the Subject Property during that time. (Compl. ¶¶ 5-7.)

During Plaintiffs’ residency, the Subject Property featured many defects rendering it uninhabitable, including pest infestations, defective plumbing lines, damaged utilities, and unsanitary conditions. (Compl. ¶¶ 12(a-j).)

Plaintiffs suffered harm to both their property and their person as a result of these uninhabitable conditions. (Compl. ¶ 24.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On August 1, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint asserting nine causes of action:

1.    Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability;

2.    Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4;

3.    Violation of Civil Code § 1941.1;

4.    Violation of Health & Safety Code § 17920.3;

5.    Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment;

6.    Nuisance;

7.    Negligence;

8.    Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and

9.    Violation of Unfair Competition Law.

On May 4, 2020, the action was reassigned to the instant Department 78.

On May 6, 2020, PAMA filed a Demurrer to the Complaint.

On October 26, 2020, this Court sustained the Demurrer as to the Ninth Cause of Action and Overruled it as to the remaining causes.

On November 4, 2020, PAMA filed an Answer.

On August 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant Orders Approving Compromise of Dispute Claim as to Victor Jr., Henry, and Marjorie.

No Opposition has been filed.

DISCUSSION

I.               PETITION TO CONFIRM MINOR’S COMPROMISE 

Plaintiff / Guardian ad litem Victor Montes files Petitions to Confirm Minor’s Compromise for his children, Marjorie Montes (7), Victor Montes, Jr. (12), and Henry Montes (13).

An enforceable settlement of a minor’s claim or that of a person lacking the capacity to make decisions can only be consummated with court approval. (Prob. Code., §§ 2504, 3500, 3600 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; see Pearson v. Super. Ct. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337.) 

“[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors, [is] a role to assure that whatever is done is in the minor’s best interests. . . .[I]ts primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor’s injuries, care and treatment.” (Goldberg v. Super. Ct. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.) 

A petition for court approval of a compromise or covenant not to sue under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court, rules 7.950, 7.951 and 7.952. The petition must be verified by the petitioner and contain a full disclosure of all information that has “any bearing upon the reasonableness” of the compromise or the covenant. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) The person compromising the claim on behalf of the minor or person who lacks capacity, and the represented person, must attend the hearing on compromise of the claim unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.952.) 

An order for deposit of funds of a minor or person lacking decision making capacity and a petition for the withdrawal of such funds must comply with California Rules of Court, rules 7.953 and 7.954. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1384; see also Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rules 4.115-4.118.) 

A.  THE SETTLEMENT

Here, Plaintiffs have agreed to a settlement for $500,000 to be distributed between all Plaintiffs. The funds are to be allocated to the Montes family as shown below:

Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Jesus A. Rodriguez notes that the discrepancy between the Parents’ award and the Children’s award is because the Children will benefit from the Parents’ award, most immediately by funding relocation costs to move from the Subject Property. (Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 8.) Additionally, the larger award amounts are due to compensation for loss of property, rent abatement, and other damages that the Children did not suffer. (Ibid.)

Rodriguez also states that the award to the Montes Children is allocated “based on the physical symptoms each had and their relative frequency and severity that Petitioner believes could be attributable to substandard housing conditions at the Subject Property. (Petition, Attachment 11b(6).)

The Court finds that the settlement amount, in its totality, adequately compensates the Children for their period living in the substandard housing, as no major medical conditions were attributed to that housing. Additionally, the Court finds that the discrepancy between the Parent’s and the Children’s awards are justified.

However, at hearing, the Court will inquire further into the discrepancy between each minor’s award to determine whether the differences are justified and reasonable.

B.  ATTORNEY’S FEES

As noted above, 25% of each Child’s award will be allocated to attorney fees, while 40% of each Parent’s award will be allocated to attorney fees. Rodriguez attaches the separate retainer agreements indicating these amounts to the petitions. (Petition, Attachment 17(a).)

In justifying these fees, Rodriguez notes that he visited the Subject Property frequently to interview all Plaintiffs, conducted multiple inspections with experts on the Subject Property, requested and reviewed medical records for the minor claimants, referred minor Claimants to expert medical examinations and bore the costs of said exams, and represented minor claimants from the beginning, assessing Defendants’ defenses in anticipation of naming the minors as Plaintiffs. (Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 4(a-g).)

As the Retainer Agreement states that 25% of the minors’ claims would be allocated to Attorney’s Fees, and as Rodriguez explained his work in preparing and litigating the matter, the Court finds that the proposed Attorney’s Fees are reasonable.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Petitions to Confirm Minors’ Compromise of Claim are GRANTED.

DATED: September 2, 2022                      __________________________ 

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court