Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV26047, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26047    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Plaintiffs’ Petition for an Order Approving Compromise of the Claim for a Minor as to minors Francisca Pulido Barraza (14) and Jesse Jr. Pulido Barraza (7) is GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

This is an action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability in a residential apartment building. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows.

Plaintiffs are tenants of an apartment complex located at 10720 Burin Ave., Inglewood, California (the “Subject Property”). (FAC ¶¶ 1-7.) Defendant RACC Properties, LLC (“RACC”) owns and manages the Subject Property. (FAC ¶ 8.) Defendants Randy Stecyk and Amy E. Stecyk (together, “Stecyk”, and with RACC, “Defendants”) are managers of RACC. (FAC ¶ 11.)

Defendants have failed their statutory and common law duty of care by failing to repair and maintain the Subject Property to the detriment of Plaintiffs’ health and safety. (Compl. ¶ 16.) These defects include pest infestation, water leaks and chronic mold, and physical defects. (FAC ¶¶ 17(a-e).) Despite actual and constructive knowledge of these defects, Defendants failed to remedy the issues. (FAC ¶ 17.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On July 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint asserting seven causes of action:

1.    Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability;

2.    Tortious Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability;

3.    Negligence;

4.    Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

5.    Private Nuisance;

6.    Violation of Civil Code section 1924.4; and,

7.    Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

On September 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint asserting the same seven causes of action.

On November 8, 2021, Defendants filed an Answer.

On October 5, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.

On November 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant Petitions to Approve Minor’s Compromise of Claim as to Francisca Pulido Barraza and Jesse Jr. Pulido Barraza.

DISCUSSION

I.                PETITION TO CONFIRM MINOR’S COMPROMISE 

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.) 

Here, Plaintiffs move the Court for an order approving the compromise of the instant claim as to Plaintiffs Francisca Pulido Barraza (14) and Jesse Jr. Pulido Barraza (7).

A.   THE SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs have agreed to a settlement of the entire claim for a total of $3,000,000. (Ersoff Decl., ¶ 2.) Of this amount, each minor will be apportioned $50,000.00. (Ersoff Decl., ¶ 26; Ex. C.) From this $50,000, $17,500 will be deducted for attorney’s fees and $768.58 for costs, as will be discussed below. (Ibid.) This leaves each minor with a net settlement of $31,731.42, which will be used to purchase annuities for each minor. (Ibid.)

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 the minors’ award, $17,500 will be deducted for attorney’s fees, and $768.58 for costs. (Ex. C.) This leaves a net settlement amount of $31,731.42. (Ibid.)

The number allocated for attorney fees represents a 35% contingency fee on the minors’ settlement award. (Ex. A.) In addition, Plaintiff’s Counsel is awarded 40% of all adult Plaintiffs’ settlement awards. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs’ Counsel notes that this was a complex matter involving numerous Plaintiffs that required intimate knowledge of hundreds of regulations and ordinances to prosecute. (Ersoff Decl., ¶ 40.) Ersoff worked almost exclusively on this case for four months. (Id., ¶ 37.) In addition, Ersoff notes that her firm took the case with little knowledge of the facts; accordingly, the firm shouldered over $46,000 in costs and one-years’ worth of attorney time without knowing whether the case would be successful. (Ibid.)

The Court finds that the attorney’s fees are reasonable given the complexity of the case, the time and effort Plaintiffs’ Counsel dedicated to the cause, Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s extensive experience in the area, and the favorable outcome for Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Petition for an Order Approving Compromise of a Disputed Claim as to Francisca Pulido Barraza and Jesse Jr. Pulido Barraza is GRANTED

DATED: February 15, 2023    

_____________________________ 

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court