Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 24STCV08328, Date: 2025-05-09 Tentative Ruling

LISETH CEBALLOS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HMLD, LP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

24STCV08328

Hearing Date:

May 9, 2025

Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE

On April 3, 2024, Plaintiffs Lisbeth Ceballos, Luis Leonardo Mata, Leana Patricia Mata, Jose Luis Mata, Andrea Renee Gonzalez, Alyssa Aliyah Perez, minor child Damian Matthew Perez, Daniel Paul Perez Jr., and Daniel Paul Perez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants HMLD, LP, and Howard T. Smith, individually and as successor co-trustee of the Henry W. Smith and Bernice M. Smith Declaration of Trust Dated February 10, 1988 (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiffs alleged causes of action related to habitability at Defendants’ rental apartments located at 18-22 N. El Molino St., Alhambra, CA 91801. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1-3.)

The parties have reached a settlement in this matter. Defendants are to pay all nine Plaintiffs represented by Plaintiffs' counsel a total of $290,000.00. (Not. of Settlement, p. 3; Mitcheltree Decl. ¶ 21.)

Petitioner Andrea Renee Gonzalez (“Petitioner”) now petitions for the Court’s approval of the settlement on behalf on Claimant Damian Matthew Perez (“Claimant”).

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).” (California Rules of Court, rule 7.950, emphasis in original.)

CRC Rule 7.955(a) requires the Court to use “a reasonable fee standard” when approving and allowing the amount of attorneys’ fees payable from money to be paid for the benefit of a person with a disability and requires that the Court “give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor… and 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… contemplated that the attorney's fee would be affected by later events.”

CRC Rule 7.955(b) sets forth fourteen nonexclusive factors the Court may consider in determining a reasonable attorney’s fee. CRC Rule 7.955(c) requires that a petition requesting Court approval and allowance of an attorney’s fee under 7.955(a) must include a declaration from the attorney that addresses the factors listed in 7.955(b) that are applicable to the matter before the Court.

Here, the petition is prepared on form MC-350 and is verified by Petitioner pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 7.950. Petitioner seeks court approval for a settlement under which Claimant would receive $7,222.22. (Mitcheltree Decl., Exh. B.) Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,527.78, representing 35% of Claimant’s settlement, will be deducted from the settlement amount. Each of the Plaintiffs, including Claimant, was allocated a gross amount of $32,222.22, but $25,000.00 of Claimant’s gross allocation was shifted to Petitioner, with her knowledge and consent. This shifted amount, which is subject to the 40% contingency fee that Petitioner’s gross allocation is subject to, will be available more immediately to Petitioner so she can care for Claimant, who has cerebral palsy.

Petitioners’ counsel declares the attorneys’ fees are reasonable per CRC Rule 7.955 for the following reasons: (a) the action includes multiple causes of action based on habitability issues, which requires considerable skill and extensive working knowledge of common law, statutory law, and insurance coverage; (b) counsel has been prosecuting habitability cases since 2015, indicating extensive experience with the applicable law; (c) considerable time was spent ensuring non-English-speaking plaintiffs understood the case; (d) considerable time was spent on investigation pre-litigation, including inspection of the apartments; (e) all fees in the case are contingent and conditioned upon a positive recovery. (Mitcheltree Decl., ¶ 30.) The Court finds the attorneys’ fees request is reasonable considering the work performed by Plaintiffs’ counsel, Tara L. Mitcheltree.

Additionally, litigation costs in the amount of $165.38 will also be deducted from the settlement amount. (Mitcheltree Decl., Exhs. B and D.) The Court finds these costs, which include filing fees and retaining mediation services, reasonable. (Mitcheltree Decl., Exh. D.) As such, Claimant’s net proceeds are $4,529.06. (Mitcheltree Decl., Exh. B.)

This is a habitability suit where Claimant experienced injuries of general cold symptoms including headaches, coughs, and fever. (MC-350, p. 2.) Claimant has recovered completely from the symptoms and there are no permanent injuries. (MC-350, p. 2.)

However, the Court notes that Item 11(b)(4) is not checked. Item 11(b)(4) provides, inter alia, that “Petitioner would receive money under the proposed settlement.” (MC-350, p. 3.) Since Petitioner will receive a net total of $32,922.98 under the proposed settlement, this box must be checked. (Mitcheltree Decl., Exh. B.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court intends to grant the petition and approve the compromise, subject to Petitioner correcting the defect identified above, and subject to Plaintiff’s examination of Petitioner at the hearing.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50