Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV12246, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12246    Hearing Date: July 30, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

            On May 31, 2023, Plaintiffs Mario Alonso Sandoval-Gonzalez; Norma Guadalupe Moreira Pacheco; Diana Sandoval; Odir Alvaro Hernandez Hernandez; Shilon Aleyna Hernandez-Sandoval, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Diana Sandoval; and Christopher Odir Hernandez Sandoval, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Diana Sandoval (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Rampart Village Villas LLC and Winstar Properties LLC.  The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of warranty of habitability, (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) negligence, and

(4) breach of contract.

The parties have reached a settlement in this matter. Diana Sandoval as Petitioner for Claimants Shilon Aleyna Hernandez-Sandoval and Christopher Odir Hernandez Sandoval now petitions for the Court’s approval of the settlement on behalf of each of the Claimants. 

            Discussion

An enforceable settlement of a minor’s claim can only be consummated with court approval. (Prob. Code, § 3500.) “A petition for court approval of a compromise of, or a covenant not to sue or enforce judgment, on a minor’s disputed claim; a compromise or settlement of a pending action or proceeding to which a minor or person with a disability is a party; or the disposition of the proceeds of a judgment for a minor or person with a disability under Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600-3613 or Code of Civil Procedure section 372 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. Except as provided in 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).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950, emphasis in original.)  

Both of the petitions are prepared on form MC-350 and are verified by the Petitioner. The Court finds that the settlement is reasonable. However, the Court notes that Items 17(e) of the petitions provide that “[t]he attorney…is not…representing or employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter. (If you answered ‘is,’ identify the party or carrier and explain the relationship in Attachment 17e.).” (Emphasis added.) This seems to be an error, as it appears Petitioner’s counsel represents each of the Plaintiffs in this matter.

In addition, as to both Claimants, the box preceding Item 8(a)(2) on forms MC-351 is not checked.

            Conclusion

Based on the foregoing and subject to the examination of Petitioner at the hearing and Petitioner confirming at the hearing that the attorney is representing all of the Plaintiffs, the Court intends to grant the petitions and approve the compromise. The Court intends to check the requisite box in Item 8(a)(2 on forms MC-351 before signing the Orders. ¿ 

Petitioner is to give notice of this ruling.  

DATED:  July 30, 2024                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court