Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 22STCV01155, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 19 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
If you desire to submit on a tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 19 before 08:00 a.m. on the day of the motion hearing. The e-mail address for submitting is SMCDept19@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name and number, and that you submit. For example, "Smith v. Jones BC551124, submit". The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.

PLEASE NOTE, The above e-mail address is only to inform the Court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries or correspondence will not receive a response.

Case Number: 22STCV01155    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: 19

JUSTINO GUTIERREZ RIVERA, et al. v. GORDON MCGRATH, et al.


TENTATIVE RULING 

After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, the Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor, filed by Plaintiff Giselle J. Gutierrez as parent and guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff Nevaeh Ivy Preciado, is GRANTED.

The Court signs the [Proposed] Order Approving Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability filed on October 10, 2024, after indicating in the caption and in Section 1 that the hearing date was November 18, 2024 rather than January 28, 2025.

Counsel for Plaintiff Giselle J. Gutierrez to give notice. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

This is a habitability action. In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), numerous Plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring suit against Defendants Gordon McGrath, Reality Holdings PSJC, LLC, E2M Property Management, LLC, and 1135 Martin Luther, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following causes of action:

1.              Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4;

2.              Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability;

3.              Private Nuisance;

4.              Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and5.              Negligence.

The action arises out of alleged habitability violations at 1135 Martin Luther King Avenue, Long Beach, California, 90813 (hereinafter the “Subject Property”) where Plaintiffs rented units. 

Plaintiff Giselle J. Gutierrez (hereafter, “Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor (the “Petition”) for minor Plaintiff Nevaeh Ivy Preciado (hereafter, “Claimant”). 

On January 12, 2022, Petitioner was appointed guardian ad litem for Claimant. 

PETITION TO APPROVE MINORS’ COMPROMISE 

A.    Legal Standards

A petition for approval of the compromise of a minor’s claim is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 372, California Rules of Court, rules 7.950 through 7.955, and Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600 through 3613. The petition “must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.” (Cal. R. Ct., 7.950.) Except for petitions for expedited approval of a compromise as provided in California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5, “the petition must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).” (Id.)

California Rules of Court, rule 7.951 provides that:

If the petitioner has been represented or assisted by an attorney in preparing the petition for approval of the compromise of the claim or in any other respect with regard to the claim, the petition must disclose the following information:

(1)  The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney;

(2)  Whether the attorney became involved with the petition, directly or indirectly, at the instance of any party against whom the claim is asserted or of any party's insurance carrier;

(3)  Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter;

(4)  Whether the attorney has received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation;

(5)  If the attorney has not received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, whether the attorney expects to receive any fees or other compensation for these services, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who is expected to pay the fees or other compensation; and

(6)  The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney.

(Cal. R. Ct., 7.951.)

Further, California Rules of Court, rule 7.953, provides as follows: 

(a) Acknowledgment of receipt by financial institution. In any case in which the court orders that funds to be received by a minor or a person with a disability must be deposited in a financial institution and not disbursed without further order of the court, the order must include a provision that a certified or filed endorsed copy of the order must be delivered to a manager at the financial institution where the funds are to be deposited, and that a receipt from the financial institution must be promptly filed with the court, acknowledging receipt of both the funds deposited and the order for the deposit of funds. 

(b) Order permitting the withdrawal of funds by a former minor. If, in the order approving the compromise of a minor's claim, there is a finding that the minor will attain the age of majority on a definite date, the order for deposit may require that the depository permit the withdrawal of funds by the former minor after that date, without further order of the court.

(Cal. R. Ct., 7.953(a))

California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subdivision (a) requires the court to use a reasonable fee standard when approving and allowing the amount of attorney's fees payable from money or property paid or to be paid for the benefit of a minor, unless the Court approved the fee arrangement in advance. (Cal. R. Ct., 7.955(a)(1).) “The court must give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made, except where the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability contemplated that the attorney's fee would be affected by later events.” (Cal. R. Ct., 7.955(a)(2).) In a petition requesting court approval and allowance of attorney's fees, California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subdivision (c) requires the attorney to submit a declaration that addresses the following nonexclusive factors applicable to the matter before the court that the court may consider:

(1)  The fact that a minor or person with a disability is involved and the circumstances of that minor or person with a disability.

(2)  The amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services performed.

(3)  The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill required to perform the legal services properly.

(4)  The amount involved and the results obtained.

(5)  The time limitations or constraints imposed by the representative of the minor or person with a disability or by the circumstances.

(6)  The nature and length of the professional relationship between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability.

(7)  The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney or attorneys performing the legal services.

(8)  The time and labor required.

(9)  The informed consent of the representative of the minor or person with a disability to the fee.

(10)  The relative sophistication of the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability.

(11)  The likelihood, if apparent to the representative of the minor or person with a disability when the representation agreement was made, that the attorney's acceptance of the particular employment would preclude other employment.

(12)  Whether the fee is fixed, hourly, or contingent.

(13)  If the fee is contingent:

(A)  The risk of loss borne by the attorney;

(B)  The amount of costs advanced by the attorney; and

(C)  The delay in payment of fees and reimbursement of costs paid by the attorney.

(14)  Statutory requirements for representation agreements applicable to particular cases or claims.

(Cal. R. Ct., 7.955(b), (c).)

B.    Analysis

Here, the Petition is brought pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 7.950. The Petition is verified and submitted on required Judicial Council form MC-350.

The Petition seeks approval of an offer by Defendants 2M Property Management, LLC, Realty Holdings PSJC, LLC, and Gordon McGrath (“Settling Defendants”) to settle Claimant’s claim for $75,000.00 as part of a $2,500,000.00 settlement to settle the entire action against Settling Defendants. (Petition, §§ 10-11, Attachment 11b(5); see Eric E. Castelblanco Decl., ¶ 11; see also Giselle J. Gutierrez Decl., ¶¶ 6-10.) The Petition seeks approval of $18,750.00 in attorney’s fees, or twenty-five percent (25%) of the $75,000.00 settlement amount to Claimant (Id. at §§ 13-15; see Castelblanco Decl. at ¶ 11.) The Petition does not request reimbursement for any litigation expenses. (Id. at § 13.) As such, after subtracting the requested attorney’s fees, the Petition seeks approval of a net settlement to Claimant of $56,250.00.

The Petition includes all the required disclosures of attorney’s interest set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 7.951. (Id. at § 17.) As required by California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, the Petition includes a declaration from Plaintiffs’ counsel, Eric E. Castelblanco, addressing the factors applicable in determining the reasonableness of the requested attorney’s fees and provides a copy of the written attorney fee agreement. (Id. at §§ 13, 17, Attachment 17a; see id. at Attachment 17f; Castelblanco Decl. at ¶¶ 6-9, 14.) The Court finds that the requested attorney’s fees are reasonable. The retainer agreement provides for payment of attorney’s fees equal to forty-five percent (45%) of any recovery obtained. (See Attachment 17a, p. 2.)  The Petition indicates that Plaintiffs’ counsel is representing or employed by other parties and specifies the parties in Attachment 17e. (Id. at § 17e, Attachment 17e.)

The Petition indicates that Claimant has completely recovered from the effects of the injuries described in item 6, and that there are no permanent injuries. (Id. at § 8.)

The Court finds that Petition contains a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the settlement amount to Claimant and that the settlement amount to Claimant is reasonable given Claimant’s injuries and lack of medical expenses.

The Petition requests that the net proceeds be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court, (id. at § 18(b)), and specifies the terms and conditions of the annuity in Attachment 18b(3). (Id. at Attachment 18b(3).)

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED.

Petitioner to give notice.

TENTATIVE RULING  

After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, the Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor, filed by Plaintiff Giselle J. Gutierrez as parent and guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff Xzavier King Preciado, is GRANTED.

The Court signs the [Proposed] Order Approving Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability filed on October 10, 2024, after indicating in the caption and in Section 1 that the hearing date was November 18, 2024 rather than January 27, 2025.

Counsel for Plaintiff Giselle J. Gutierrez to give notice. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a habitability action. In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), numerous Plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring suit against Defendants Gordon McGrath, Reality Holdings PSJC, LLC, E2M Property Management, LLC, and 1135 Martin Luther, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following causes of action:

1.              Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4;

2.              Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability;

3.              Private Nuisance;

4.              Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and

5.              Negligence. 

The action arises out of alleged habitability violations at 1135 Martin Luther King Avenue, Long Beach, California, 90813 (hereinafter the “Subject Property”) where Plaintiffs rented units. 

Plaintiff Giselle J. Gutierrez (hereafter, “Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor (the “Petition”) for minor Plaintiff Xzavier King Preciado (hereafter, “Claimant”). 

On January 14, 2022, Petitioner was appointed guardian ad litem for Claimant. 

PETITION TO APPROVE MINORS’ COMPROMISE

 A.    Legal Standards

A petition for approval of the compromise of a minor’s claim is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 372, California Rules of Court, rules 7.950 through 7.955, and Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600 through 3613. The petition “must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.” (Cal. R. Ct., 7.950.) Except for petitions for expedited approval of a compromise as provided in California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5, “the petition must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).” (Id.)

California Rules of Court, rule 7.951 provides that:

If the petitioner has been represented or assisted by an attorney in preparing the petition for approval of the compromise of the claim or in any other respect with regard to the claim, the petition must disclose the following information:

(1)  The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney;

(2)  Whether the attorney became involved with the petition, directly or indirectly, at the instance of any party against whom the claim is asserted or of any party's insurance carrier;

(3)  Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter;

(4)  Whether the attorney has received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation;

(5)  If the attorney has not received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, whether the attorney expects to receive any fees or other compensation for these services, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who is expected to pay the fees or other compensation; and

(6)  The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney.

(Cal. R. Ct., 7.951.)

Further, California Rules of Court, rule 7.953, provides as follows: 

(a) Acknowledgment of receipt by financial institution. In any case in which the court orders that funds to be received by a minor or a person with a disability must be deposited in a financial institution and not disbursed without further order of the court, the order must include a provision that a certified or filed endorsed copy of the order must be delivered to a manager at the financial institution where the funds are to be deposited, and that a receipt from the financial institution must be promptly filed with the court, acknowledging receipt of both the funds deposited and the order for the deposit of funds. 

(b) Order permitting the withdrawal of funds by a former minor. If, in the order approving the compromise of a minor's claim, there is a finding that the minor will attain the age of majority on a definite date, the order for deposit may require that the depository permit the withdrawal of funds by the former minor after that date, without further order of the court.

(Cal. R. Ct., 7.953(a))

California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subdivision (a) requires the court to use a reasonable fee standard when approving and allowing the amount of attorney's fees payable from money or property paid or to be paid for the benefit of a minor, unless the Court approved the fee arrangement in advance. (Cal. R. Ct., 7.955(a)(1).) “The court must give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made, except where the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability contemplated that the attorney's fee would be affected by later events.” (Cal. R. Ct., 7.955(a)(2).) In a petition requesting court approval and allowance of attorney's fees, California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subdivision (c) requires the attorney to submit a declaration that addresses the following nonexclusive factors applicable to the matter before the court that the court may consider:

(1)  The fact that a minor or person with a disability is involved and the circumstances of that minor or person with a disability.

(2)  The amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services performed.

(3)  The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill required to perform the legal services properly.

(4)  The amount involved and the results obtained.

(5)  The time limitations or constraints imposed by the representative of the minor or person with a disability or by the circumstances.

(6)  The nature and length of the professional relationship between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability.

(7)  The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney or attorneys performing the legal services.

(8)  The time and labor required.

(9)  The informed consent of the representative of the minor or person with a disability to the fee.

(10)  The relative sophistication of the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability.

(11)  The likelihood, if apparent to the representative of the minor or person with a disability when the representation agreement was made, that the attorney's acceptance of the particular employment would preclude other employment.

(12)  Whether the fee is fixed, hourly, or contingent.

(13)  If the fee is contingent:

(A)  The risk of loss borne by the attorney;

(B)  The amount of costs advanced by the attorney; and

(C)  The delay in payment of fees and reimbursement of costs paid by the attorney.

(14)  Statutory requirements for representation agreements applicable to particular cases or claims.

(Cal. R. Ct., 7.955(b), (c).)

B.    Analysis

Here, the Petition is brought pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 7.950. The Petition is verified and submitted on required Judicial Council form MC-350.

The Petition seeks approval of an offer by Defendants 2M Property Management, LLC, Realty Holdings PSJC, LLC, and Gordon McGrath (“Settling Defendants”) to settle Claimant’s claim for $75,000.00 as part of a $2,500,000.00 settlement to settle the entire action against Settling Defendants. (Petition, §§ 10-11, Attachment 11b(5); see Eric E. Castelblanco Decl., ¶ 11; see also Giselle J. Gutierrez Decl., ¶¶ 6-10.) The Petition seeks approval of $18,750.00 in attorney’s fees, or twenty-five percent (25%) of the $75,000.00 settlement amount to Claimant (Id. at §§ 13-15; see Castelblanco Decl. at ¶ 11.) The Petition does not request reimbursement for any litigation expenses. (Id. at § 13.) As such, after subtracting the requested attorney’s fees, the Petition seeks approval of a net settlement to Claimant of $56,250.00.

The Petition includes all the required disclosures of attorney’s interest set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 7.951. (Id. at § 17.) As required by California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, the Petition includes a declaration from Plaintiffs’ counsel, Eric E. Castelblanco, addressing the factors applicable in determining the reasonableness of the requested attorney’s fees and provides a copy of the written attorney fee agreement. (Id. at §§ 13, 17, Attachment 17a; see id. at Attachment 17f; Castelblanco Decl. at ¶¶ 6-9, 14.) The Court finds that the requested attorney’s fees are reasonable. The retainer agreement provides for payment of attorney’s fees equal to forty-five percent (45%) of any recovery obtained. (See Attachment 17a, p. 2.)  The Petition indicates that Plaintiffs’ counsel is representing or employed by other parties and specifies the parties in Attachment 17e. (Id. at § 17e, Attachment 17e.)

The Petition indicates that Claimant has completely recovered from the effects of the injuries described in item 6, and that there are no permanent injuries. (Id. at § 8.)

The Court finds that Petition contains a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the settlement amount to Claimant and that the settlement amount to Claimant is reasonable given Claimant’s injuries and lack of medical expenses.

The Petition requests that the net proceeds be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court, (id. at § 18(b)), and specifies the terms and conditions of the annuity in Attachment 18b(3). (Id. at Attachment 18b(3).)

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED.

Petitioner to give notice. 

TENTATIVE RULING

After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, the Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor, filed by Plaintiff Giselle J. Gutierrez as parent and guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff Kevin Steven Dominguez Ramos, is GRANTED.

The Court signs the [Proposed] Order Approving Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability filed on October 10, 2024, after indicating in the caption and in Section 1 that the hearing date was November 18, 2024 rather than January 28, 2025.

Counsel for Plaintiff Giselle J. Gutierrez to give notice. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a habitability action. In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), numerous Plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring suit against Defendants Gordon McGrath, Reality Holdings PSJC, LLC, E2M Property Management, LLC, and 1135 Martin Luther, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following causes of action:

1.              Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4;

2.              Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability;

3.              Private Nuisance;

4.              Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and

5.              Negligence. 

The action arises out of alleged habitability violations at 1135 Martin Luther King Avenue, Long Beach, California, 90813 (hereinafter the “Subject Property”) where Plaintiffs rented units. 

Plaintiff Giselle J. Gutierrez (hereafter, “Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor (the “Petition”) for minor Plaintiff Kevin Steven Dominguez Ramos, (hereafter, “Claimant”). 

On January 12, 2022, Petitioner was appointed guardian ad litem for Claimant. 

PETITION TO APPROVE MINORS’ COMPROMISE 

A.    Legal Standards

A petition for approval of the compromise of a minor’s claim is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 372, California Rules of Court, rules 7.950 through 7.955, and Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600 through 3613. The petition “must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.” (Cal. R. Ct., 7.950.) Except for petitions for expedited approval of a compromise as provided in California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5, “the petition must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).” (Id.) 

California Rules of Court, rule 7.951 provides that:

If the petitioner has been represented or assisted by an attorney in preparing the petition for approval of the compromise of the claim or in any other respect with regard to the claim, the petition must disclose the following information:

(1)  The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney;

(2)  Whether the attorney became involved with the petition, directly or indirectly, at the instance of any party against whom the claim is asserted or of any party's insurance carrier;

(3)  Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter;

(4)  Whether the attorney has received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation;

(5)  If the attorney has not received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, whether the attorney expects to receive any fees or other compensation for these services, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who is expected to pay the fees or other compensation; and

(6)  The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney.

(Cal. R. Ct., 7.951.)

Further, California Rules of Court, rule 7.953, provides as follows: 

(a) Acknowledgment of receipt by financial institution. In any case in which the court orders that funds to be received by a minor or a person with a disability must be deposited in a financial institution and not disbursed without further order of the court, the order must include a provision that a certified or filed endorsed copy of the order must be delivered to a manager at the financial institution where the funds are to be deposited, and that a receipt from the financial institution must be promptly filed with the court, acknowledging receipt of both the funds deposited and the order for the deposit of funds. 

(b) Order permitting the withdrawal of funds by a former minor. If, in the order approving the compromise of a minor's claim, there is a finding that the minor will attain the age of majority on a definite date, the order for deposit may require that the depository permit the withdrawal of funds by the former minor after that date, without further order of the court.

(Cal. R. Ct., 7.953(a))

California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subdivision (a) requires the court to use a reasonable fee standard when approving and allowing the amount of attorney's fees payable from money or property paid or to be paid for the benefit of a minor, unless the Court approved the fee arrangement in advance. (Cal. R. Ct., 7.955(a)(1).) “The court must give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made, except where the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability contemplated that the attorney's fee would be affected by later events.” (Cal. R. Ct., 7.955(a)(2).) In a petition requesting court approval and allowance of attorney's fees, California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subdivision (c) requires the attorney to submit a declaration that addresses the following nonexclusive factors applicable to the matter before the court that the court may consider:

(1)  The fact that a minor or person with a disability is involved and the circumstances of that minor or person with a disability.

(2)  The amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services performed.

(3)  The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill required to perform the legal services properly.

(4)  The amount involved and the results obtained.

(5)  The time limitations or constraints imposed by the representative of the minor or person with a disability or by the circumstances.

(6)  The nature and length of the professional relationship between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability.

(7)  The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney or attorneys performing the legal services.

(8)  The time and labor required.

(9)  The informed consent of the representative of the minor or person with a disability to the fee.

(10)  The relative sophistication of the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability.

(11)  The likelihood, if apparent to the representative of the minor or person with a disability when the representation agreement was made, that the attorney's acceptance of the particular employment would preclude other employment.

(12)  Whether the fee is fixed, hourly, or contingent.

(13)  If the fee is contingent:

(A)  The risk of loss borne by the attorney;

(B)  The amount of costs advanced by the attorney; and

(C)  The delay in payment of fees and reimbursement of costs paid by the attorney.

(14)  Statutory requirements for representation agreements applicable to particular cases or claims.

(Cal. R. Ct., 7.955(b), (c).)

B.    Analysis

Here, the Petition is brought pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 7.950. The Petition is verified and submitted on required Judicial Council form MC-350.

The Petition seeks approval of an offer by Defendants 2M Property Management, LLC, Realty Holdings PSJC, LLC, and Gordon McGrath (“Settling Defendants”) to settle Claimant’s claim for $75,000.00 as part of a $2,500,000.00 settlement to settle the entire action against Settling Defendants. (Petition, §§ 10-11, Attachment 11b(5); see Eric E. Castelblanco Decl., ¶ 11; see also Giselle J. Gutierrez Decl., ¶¶ 6-10.) The Petition seeks approval of $18,750.00 in attorney’s fees, or twenty-five percent (25%) of the $75,000.00 settlement amount to Claimant (Id. at §§ 13-15; see Castelblanco Decl. at ¶ 11.) The Petition does not request reimbursement for any litigation expenses. (Id. at § 13.) As such, after subtracting the requested attorney’s fees, the Petition seeks approval of a net settlement to Claimant of $56,250.00.

The Petition includes all the required disclosures of attorney’s interest set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 7.951. (Id. at § 17.) As required by California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, the Petition includes a declaration from Plaintiffs’ counsel, Eric E. Castelblanco, addressing the factors applicable in determining the reasonableness of the requested attorney’s fees and provides a copy of the written attorney fee agreement. (Id. at §§ 13, 17, Attachment 17a; see id. at Attachment 17f; Castelblanco Decl. at ¶¶ 6-9, 14.) The Court finds that the requested attorney’s fees are reasonable. The retainer agreement provides for payment of attorney’s fees equal to forty-five percent (45%) of any recovery obtained. (See Attachment 17a, p. 2.)  The Petition indicates that Plaintiffs’ counsel is representing or employed by other parties and specifies the parties in Attachment 17e. (Id. at § 17e, Attachment 17e.)

The Petition indicates that Claimant has completely recovered from the effects of the injuries described in item 6, and that there are no permanent injuries. (Id. at § 8.)

The Court finds that Petition contains a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the settlement amount to Claimant and that the settlement amount to Claimant is reasonable given Claimant’s injuries and lack of medical expenses.

The Petition requests that the net proceeds be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court, (id. at § 18(b)), and specifies the terms and conditions of the annuity in Attachment 18b(3). (Id. at Attachment 18b(3).)

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED.

Petitioner to give notice.

 

TENTATIVE RULING 

After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, the Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor, filed by Plaintiff Giselle J. Gutierrez as parent and guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff Milan Abad Saligan Ramos, is GRANTED.

The Court signs the [Proposed] Order Approving Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability filed on October 10, 2024, after indicating in the caption and in Section 1 that the hearing date was November 18, 2024 rather than January 28, 2025.

Counsel for Plaintiff Giselle J. Gutierrez to give notice.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

This is a habitability action. In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), numerous Plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring suit against Defendants Gordon McGrath, Reality Holdings PSJC, LLC, E2M Property Management, LLC, and 1135 Martin Luther, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following causes of action:

1.              Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4;

2.              Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability;

3.              Private Nuisance;

4.              Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and

5.              Negligence. 

The action arises out of alleged habitability violations at 1135 Martin Luther King Avenue, Long Beach, California, 90813 (hereinafter the “Subject Property”) where Plaintiffs rented units. 

Plaintiff Giselle J. Gutierrez (hereafter, “Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor (the “Petition”) for minor Plaintiff Milan Abad Saligan Ramos (hereafter, “Claimant”). 

On January 12, 2022, Petitioner was appointed guardian ad litem for Claimant. 

PETITION TO APPROVE MINORS’ COMPROMISE 

A.    Legal Standards

A petition for approval of the compromise of a minor’s claim is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 372, California Rules of Court, rules 7.950 through 7.955, and Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600 through 3613. The petition “must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.” (Cal. R. Ct., 7.950.) Except for petitions for expedited approval of a compromise as provided in California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5, “the petition must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).” (Id.)

California Rules of Court, rule 7.951 provides that:

If the petitioner has been represented or assisted by an attorney in preparing the petition for approval of the compromise of the claim or in any other respect with regard to the claim, the petition must disclose the following information:

(1)  The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney;

(2)  Whether the attorney became involved with the petition, directly or indirectly, at the instance of any party against whom the claim is asserted or of any party's insurance carrier;

(3)  Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter;

(4)  Whether the attorney has received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation;

(5)  If the attorney has not received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, whether the attorney expects to receive any fees or other compensation for these services, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who is expected to pay the fees or other compensation; and

(6)  The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney.

(Cal. R. Ct., 7.951.)

Further, California Rules of Court, rule 7.953, provides as follows: 

(a) Acknowledgment of receipt by financial institution. In any case in which the court orders that funds to be received by a minor or a person with a disability must be deposited in a financial institution and not disbursed without further order of the court, the order must include a provision that a certified or filed endorsed copy of the order must be delivered to a manager at the financial institution where the funds are to be deposited, and that a receipt from the financial institution must be promptly filed with the court, acknowledging receipt of both the funds deposited and the order for the deposit of funds. 

(b) Order permitting the withdrawal of funds by a former minor. If, in the order approving the compromise of a minor's claim, there is a finding that the minor will attain the age of majority on a definite date, the order for deposit may require that the depository permit the withdrawal of funds by the former minor after that date, without further order of the court.

(Cal. R. Ct., 7.953(a))

California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subdivision (a) requires the court to use a reasonable fee standard when approving and allowing the amount of attorney's fees payable from money or property paid or to be paid for the benefit of a minor, unless the Court approved the fee arrangement in advance. (Cal. R. Ct., 7.955(a)(1).) “The court must give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made, except where the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability contemplated that the attorney's fee would be affected by later events.” (Cal. R. Ct., 7.955(a)(2).) In a petition requesting court approval and allowance of attorney's fees, California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subdivision (c) requires the attorney to submit a declaration that addresses the following nonexclusive factors applicable to the matter before the court that the court may consider:

(1)  The fact that a minor or person with a disability is involved and the circumstances of that minor or person with a disability.

(2)  The amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services performed.

(3)  The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill required to perform the legal services properly.

(4)  The amount involved and the results obtained.

(5)  The time limitations or constraints imposed by the representative of the minor or person with a disability or by the circumstances.

(6)  The nature and length of the professional relationship between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability.

(7)  The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney or attorneys performing the legal services.

(8)  The time and labor required.

(9)  The informed consent of the representative of the minor or person with a disability to the fee.

(10)  The relative sophistication of the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability.

(11)  The likelihood, if apparent to the representative of the minor or person with a disability when the representation agreement was made, that the attorney's acceptance of the particular employment would preclude other employment.

(12)  Whether the fee is fixed, hourly, or contingent.

(13)  If the fee is contingent:

(A)  The risk of loss borne by the attorney;

(B)  The amount of costs advanced by the attorney; and

(C)  The delay in payment of fees and reimbursement of costs paid by the attorney.

(14)  Statutory requirements for representation agreements applicable to particular cases or claims.

(Cal. R. Ct., 7.955(b), (c).)

B.    Analysis

Here, the Petition is brought pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 7.950. The Petition is verified and submitted on required Judicial Council form MC-350.

The Petition seeks approval of an offer by Defendants 2M Property Management, LLC, Realty Holdings PSJC, LLC, and Gordon McGrath (“Settling Defendants”) to settle Claimant’s claim for $75,000.00 as part of a $2,500,000.00 settlement to settle the entire action against Settling Defendants. (Petition, §§ 10-11, Attachment 11b(5); see Eric E. Castelblanco Decl., ¶ 11; see also Giselle J. Gutierrez Decl., ¶¶ 6-10.) The Petition seeks approval of $18,750.00 in attorney’s fees, or twenty-five percent (25%) of the $75,000.00 settlement amount to Claimant (Id. at §§ 13-15; see Castelblanco Decl. at ¶ 11.) The Petition does not request reimbursement for any litigation expenses. (Id. at § 13.) As such, after subtracting the requested attorney’s fees, the Petition seeks approval of a net settlement to Claimant of $56,250.00.

The Petition includes all the required disclosures of attorney’s interest set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 7.951. (Id. at § 17.) As required by California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, the Petition includes a declaration from Plaintiffs’ counsel, Eric E. Castelblanco, addressing the factors applicable in determining the reasonableness of the requested attorney’s fees and provides a copy of the written attorney fee agreement. (Id. at §§ 13, 17, Attachment 17a; see id. at Attachment 17f; Castelblanco Decl. at ¶¶ 6-9, 14.) The Court finds that the requested attorney’s fees are reasonable. The retainer agreement provides for payment of attorney’s fees equal to forty-five percent (45%) of any recovery obtained. (See Attachment 17a, p. 2.)  The Petition indicates that Plaintiffs’ counsel is representing or employed by other parties and specifies the parties in Attachment 17e. (Id. at § 17e, Attachment 17e.)

The Petition indicates that Claimant has completely recovered from the effects of the injuries described in item 6, and that there are no permanent injuries. (Id. at § 8.)

The Court finds that Petition contains a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the settlement amount to Claimant and that the settlement amount to Claimant is reasonable given Claimant’s injuries and lack of medical expenses.

The Petition requests that the net proceeds be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court, (id. at § 18(b)), and specifies the terms and conditions of the annuity in Attachment 18b(3). (Id. at Attachment 18b(3).)

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED.

Petitioner to give notice.