Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 22STCV01267, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01267    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    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 is GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

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

Plaintiffs Cynthia Maryann Parra (“Parra”), Christopher Lopez (“Lopez”), and Joshua Eloy Espinoza (“Espinoza” and together with Parra and Lopez, “Plaintiffs”) are tenants renting property located at 566 N Marengo Ave., Pasadena, CA 91101 (the “Subject Property”). (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2.) Defendant Group IX BP Properties LP (“Defendant”) owns and manages the Subject Property. (Compl. ¶ 1.) The Subject Property has been uninhabitable since Plaintiffs signed the lease, including issues with sanitation, lack of hot water, rodent infestation, pest infestation, and security and safety deficiencies. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs informed Defendant of these conditions, but Defendant did not remedy them. (Compl. ¶ 10.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On January 12, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint asserting six causes of action:

1.    Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability;

2.    Breach of Statutory Warranty of Habitability;

3.    Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment;

4.    Negligence;

5.    Violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4; and

6.    Private Nuisance

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement.

On August 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim.  

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, Plaintiff Joshua Eloy Espinoza is six years old. (Petition at p. 1) Petitioner Cynthia Maryann Parra is his mother and guardian ad litem. (Ibid.)

A.  THE SETTLEMENT

Here, Plaintiffs have agreed to a settlement for Espinoza in the amount of $5,000. (Petition, Attachment 12.) Lopez and Parra have both accepted settlements in the amount of $22,500, each. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs note that the discrepancy in the settlement amounts is because much of the damages paid to Lopez and Parra are intended to compensate them for breach of contract, medical expenses, property damage, out-of-pocket costs and other losses not suffered by Espinoza. (Id., Attachment 14a.) As Espinoza did not suffer major injury, and as his minor injuries were treated with over-the-counter remedies, the Court finds that the proposed settlement reasonably compensates him for his damages.

B.  ATTORNEY’S FEES

Of Espinoza’s $5,000 settlement, $1,217.77 will go to attorney fees, and $128.93 to costs. (Id., Attachment 12.) This leaves a net settlement amount of $3,653.30. (Ibid.)

The number allocated for attorney fees represents a 25% contingency fee on Espinoza’s settlement award. (Id., Attachment 14(a).) Espinoza’s attorney, Christofer Chapman (“Chapman”), submits a declaration to support these fees. (Ibid.)  Chapman notes that this was a complex matter involving twelve plaintiffs in two units with individual bodily injury and property damages claims. (Ibid.) Chapman attaches the Legal Services Agreement detailing the contingency fee to the Petition. (Id., Attachment 18a.) The Court finds that Chapman’s attorney’s fees are reasonable and in accordance with the Legal Services Agreement.

The Court finds that the settlement compromise adequately compensates Espinoza for his injuries sustained living in a substandard apartment complex. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Petition to Approve Compromise of a Claim for a Minor is GRANTED.

DATED: August 23, 2022                _____________________________ 

Hon. Robert S. Draper