Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV15618, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15618    Hearing Date: January 7, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs Maria Marquez; Alejando Ulises Amaro, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Maria Marquez; and a number of other plaintiffs filed this action on July 5, 2023 against Defendants 1812 5th Street LLC, Taylor Equities 17, LLC, RI 1812 Apartments LLC, Linda V. Armor, and Ingenious Asset Group Inc. The Complaint alleges causes of action for

(1) breach of warranty of habitability, (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) negligence, (4) breach of contract, (5) nuisance, and (6) unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

On December 15, 2023, Taylor Equities 17 LLC and RI 1812 Apartments LLC filed a Cross-Complaint for Equitable Indemnity and Contribution against Roes 1 to 100. On March 21, 2024, Ingenious Asset Group, Inc. filed a Cross-Complaint against Moes 1 through 25, alleging six causes of action.

A settlement has been reached in this case. Maria Marquez as Petitioner for Claimant Alejando Ulises Amaro now petitions for the Court’s approval of the settlement on behalf of the Claimant. 

            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.)  

Here, the petition is prepared on Form MC-350 and is verified by Petitioner. However, the Court notes that Item 10(b) of the petition provides, inter alia, that “[t]he defendants and amounts offered by each are as follows (specify):…LINDA V ARMOR, et al.” Petitioner’s use of “et al.” makes it unclear if other defendants (in addition to Linda V. Armor) are also parties to the settlement, and if so, which defendants. 

In addition, Item 4 of the proposed order (Form MC-351) provides that “[t]he claim or action to be compromised or settled is asserted, or the judgment is entered, against (name of settling or judgment defendant or defendants (the ‘payer’)): LINDA V ARMOR, et al.” Again, it is unclear what “et al.” refers to. The names of each of the defendant(s) should be specified.

Similarly, Item 17(f) of the petition indicates that the attorney “does expect to receive attorney’s fees or other compensation in addition to that requested in this petition for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to this petition.” Item 17(f) provides, “(If you answered ‘does,’ identify the person who will pay the fees or other compensation, the amounts to be paid, and the expected dates of payment).” However, the petition lists “LINDA V ARMOR, et al.” It is unclear if the attorney’s fees or other compensation is being provided by unspecified defendants in addition to Linda V. Armor.

Lastly, Item 11(b)(5) of the petition indicates that the settlement payments are to be apportioned and distributed to certain other plaintiffs or claimants. However, the parties listed in Item 11(b)(5) do not appear to be plaintiffs in the instant action. Petitioner’s Attachment 11b(5) also appears to list certain parties that are not plaintiffs in the instant action.

            Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the petition without prejudice.

Petitioner is to give notice of this Order.  

DATED:  January 7, 2025                              ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court