Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STCV11647, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11647    Hearing Date: December 16, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 12-16-24

Case # 22STCV11647

Trial Date: Vacated

MINORS COMPROMISE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Rosalba Perez, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendants, Lotus Property Services, Inc., et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Minors Compromise

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiffs Rosalba Perez and Fionan “Mac Cann: with minor child Calixta Cielo “Mc Cann” resided in certain premises owned and/or managed by Defendants John W. Chapman, II, Meredith M. Chapman, and Lotus Property Services, Inc. On April 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a habitability complaint, including lead paint hazards for harm caused to Calixta. Defendants answered the complaint on May 25, 2022. On September 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement of the entire case.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Rosalba Perez submits a petition for approval for minors compromises on behalf of five year old Calixta Cielo “Mc Cann” for a $800,000 settlement amount entered into with Defendants John W. Chapman, II, Meredith M. Chapman, and Lotus Property Services, Inc. Perez also represents a settlement of $100,000 each to Perez and Fionan “Mac Cann.” (Global settlement of $1,000,000.) [Attachment 18b(3).]

Petitioner presents a net payment to the minor of $453,057.57 following deduction of $240,000 in attorney fees (30%) [Attachment 17(a)] and expenses of $106,932.43 (marked down from $138,665.54). [Declaration of Juan Victoria, Attachment 14.] Counsel separately deducts $40,000/each in fees from the Perez and Mac Cann settlements.

The expenses are exceptionally high, but documented as expenses for experts, depositions and discovery, plus a $5,000 advance to the adult Plaintiffs. The court assumes the necessity of the expenses reflects challenges to causation. The court however notes a lack of address of the adequacy of the damages recovery, though accepts long term care provisions for the minor are reflected in the amount. The court presumes the $1,000,000 global settlement reflects the insurance policy limit, and therefore the basis for the agreed upon amount, though questions the necessity of said inordinate expenses given the supposed insurance policy cap. The court approves the expenses notwithstanding the disproportionate amount of costs relative to the recovery.

Although not indicated in the petition itself, the settlement provides for the purchase of a structured settlement annuity with MetLife Assignment Company, Inc. will provide a progressive larger series of lump sum payments to Calixta from September 9, 2036, through September 9, 2048. The court requires proof of the annuity purchase.

The court approves the petition.

The court will set an OSC re: Verification of the Deposit of Net Proceeds into the Annuity for the next 45-60 days.

Plaintiff to give notice.