Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 20STCV03517, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV03517 Hearing Date: April 18, 2023 Dept: 78
Please note the GAL is ordered present at the hearing. The appearances of the minors is excused as the hearing is during school hours.
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 78
SANDY PEACOCK, et al.,
Plaintiffs;
vs.
ARTURO SOLIS,
Defendant.
Case No.: 20STCV03517
Hearing Date: April 18, 2023
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR AN ORDER APPROVING COMPROMISE OF CLAIM FOR A MINOR.
Plaintiffs’ Petition for an Order Approving Compromise of the Claim for a Minor as to minors Benicio Peacock-Esparza (5), Joaquin Peacock-Esparza (8), and Stella Peacock-Beradini (17) is GRANTED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is a habitability action. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiffs Sandy Peacock (“Peacock”), Cesar Esparza (“Esparza”), Stella Peacock-Bernadini (“Stella”), Joaquin Peacock-Esparza (“Joaquin”), and Benecio Peacock-Esparza (“Benecio”) resided in the subject property (the “Property”) from January 15, 2016 to July 1, 2019, pursuant to a lease agreement. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2.) During the lease period the Property had numerous defects and dangerous conditions including substantial leaking and mold, damaged flooring, substandard plumbing pipes and fixtures, defective and unsafe electrical wiring, lack of security doors and smoke detectors, unpermitted construction and repairs, lack of insulation, lead exposure, and lack of heating unit. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs filed numerous complaints but Defendant Arturo Solis (“Solis”), the landlord, refused to make any permanent repairs and failed to act promptly. (Compl. ¶¶ 21-25.) Plaintiffs eventually moved out on July 1, 2019, due to poor living conditions. (Compl. ¶ 23.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting six causes of action:
1. Breach of Statutory Warranty of Habitability;
2. Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability;
3. Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment;
4. Constructive Eviction;
5. Negligence; and,
6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
On August 7, 2020, Solis filed a Motion to Strike. That Motion was denied.
On January 12, 2021, Solis filed an Answer.
On November 2, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant Petitions to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim as to minors Stella Peacock-Beradini, Benecio Peacock-Esparza, and Joaquin Peacock-Esparza.
On February 3, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the instant motion to March 16, 2023.
On March 16, 2023, the Court called the instant Motion for hearing. As there was no appearance for Defendant, and as it was unclear whether notice had been given to Defendant regarding the continuance, the Court continued the hearing to April 18, 2023, and ordered Plaintiff to file amended proposed orders reflecting the new hearing date.
Also on March 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed the amended proposed orders.
On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement.
No Opposition has been filed.
DISCUSSION
I. PETITION TO CONFIRM MINOR’S COMPROMISE
Plaintiffs petition the Court to confirm a minor’s compromise of a disputed claim as to minors Stella Peacock-Beradini (17), Benecio Peacock-Esparza (5), and Joaquin Peacock-Esparza (8).
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
Plaintiffs have agreed to a settlement of the entire claim for a total of $95,000.00. (Petition at p. 3.) Of this amount, each minor will be apportioned $3,000.00. (Ibid.) From this $3,000.00, $750.00 will be deducted for attorney’s fees. (Id. at p. 6.) This leaves each minor with a net settlement of $2,250.00. (Ibid.)
Plaintiffs note that the discrepancy between the minors’ awards and their guardians’ awards is because the minors did not seek medical treatment for any damage caused by the alleged habitability issues. The guardians’ award is largely based on property and rent damages, which the minors did not sustain. (Petition, Attachment 11(b)(6).
The Court finds that the proposed settlement is in the minors’ best interest, and that the settlement amount sufficiently provides for their injuries, care, and treatment.
B. ATTORNEY’S FEES
Of each minor’s award, $750.00 will be deducted for attorney’s fees. (Petition at p. 6.) This leaves a net settlement amount of $2,250.00 per minor. (Ibid.)
The number allocated for attorney fees represents a 25% contingency fee on the minors’ settlement award. (Petition, Attachment 13(a).) In addition, Plaintiffs’ Counsel is awarded 40% of all adult Plaintiffs’ settlement awards. (Ibid.)
Plaintiffs’ Counsel notes that the action was difficult as there were multiple Plaintiffs for whom Counsel had to conduct discovery. (Uzoh Decl., ¶ 8.) Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Counsel contends that Plaintiffs obtained a favorable result due to this work. (Ibid.)
The Court finds that the attorney’s fees are reasonable due to the favorable outcome of the case, and as the requested attorney fees are below what are allowable under the retainer agreement.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Petitions for an Order Approving Compromise of the Claim for a Minor as to minors Benicio Peacock-Esparza, Joaquin Peacock-Esparza, and Stella Peacock-Beradini are GRANTED pending the filing of a declaration of written assurance by the parent. It is ordered that a declaration of written assurance be filed in connection with each petition within five court days after the date of this order.
An OSC RE: Why Sanctions in the Amount of $500 should not be Imposed for Failure to File the Required Declarations of Written Assurance as Ordered and Dismissal (Settlement) is set for June 16, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.
Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.
DATED: April 18, 2023
_____________________________
Hon. Jill T. Feeney
Judge of the Superior Court
