Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV08006, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08006    Hearing Date: September 8, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     September 8, 2023                 TRIAL DATE: VACATED

CASE:                         Briana Monee Washington, et al. v,. Jesse Rials, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV08006           

PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION (x2)

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Briana Monee Washington individually and as Guardian ad Litem for (1) Bryson K. Patterson and (2) Bailee R. Morrow

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 9/7/23

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a habitability action that was filed on March 4, 2022. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to properly maintain the residence in which Plaintiffs reside, despite numerous serious defects in habitability, including vermin infestation, serious plumbing issues, faulty electrical fittings, and inoperable doors and windows, among other issues.

Plaintiffs bring a set of petitions to approve two minors’ compromises of the pending action.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petitions for Approval of Minor’s Compromise of the Pending Action are GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

Petitioner Brianna Monee Washington, as parent and Guardian ad Litem of the minor claimants Bryson K. Patterson (age 6) and Bailee R. Morrow (age 7), seeks approval of the minors’ compromise with Defendants.

//

Legal Standard

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim or that of a person lacking the capacity to make decisions.  (Prob. Code, §§ 2504, 3500, 3600 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; see Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337.)  “[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors, [is] a role to assure that whatever is done is in the minor’s best interests . . . .  [I]ts primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor’s injuries, care and treatment.”  (Goldberg v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.)   

A petition for court approval of a compromise or covenant not to sue under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court Rules 7.950, 7.951, and 7.952.  The petition must be verified by the petitioner and contain a full disclosure of all information that has “any bearing upon the reasonableness” of the compromise or the covenant.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)  The person compromising the claim on behalf of the minor or person who lacks capacity, and the represented person, must attend the hearing on compromise of the claim unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.952(a).)  An order for deposit of funds of a minor or person lacking decision-making capacity and a petition for the withdrawal of such funds must comply with California Rules of Court Rules 7.953 and 7.954.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1384; see also Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rules 4.115-4.118.) 

Form MC-350 (Rev. January 1, 2021):

The petitions have been verified by Petitioners and presented on a fully completed mandatory Judicial Council Form MC-350, using the current January 1, 2021 revision. (Cal. Rule of Court Rule 7.950.)

Settlement:

Plaintiffs are a household consisting of one adult and two minors who were tenants at the property that is the subject of this action from March of 2021 to March of 2023. (Petition Attachment 11b(6).) Pursuant to the settlement with Defendants, Petitioner will receive $90,000, while each of the minor claimants will receive $5,000. (¶¶ 10b, 11b(5).)

The distribution of the recoveries is justified in that Petitioner, as the parent, paid rent for an uninhabitable apartment, and thus was the party who suffered greater injuries. (Attach. 11b(6).)

Attorney’s Fees

The retained attorney’s information has been disclosed as required by Rule of Court 7.951. (Petition ¶ 17b.)  There is an agreement for services provided in connection with the underlying claim. (Petition ¶ 17a(2).)  A copy of the agreement was submitted with the Petition as strictly required by Rule of Court 7.951(6). (Attach. 17a.)

            Petitioners’ counsel is seeking to recover $1,250 in fees for each of the petitions, for a total of $2,500 in attorney’s fees (Petition ¶¶13a, 17f.) Pursuant to the Court’s August 17, 2023 order, Counsel has provided a supplemental declaration addressing the reasonableness of the fee request, as required by Rule of Court 7,995(c), accounting for the factors specified in Rule of Court 7,955(b). CRC Rule 7.955(b) provides:

(b) Factors the court may consider in determining a reasonable attorney's fee.   In determining a reasonable attorney's fee, the court may consider the following nonexclusive factors:

 (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. Rules of Court Rule 7.955(b).) The Court addresses these factors below.

//

            Amount of Fee in Proportion to Value of Services Performed

            Plaintiff’s counsel contends that an attorney fee of 25% of the sum recovered on behalf of the minor claimants is a reasonable fee in proportion to the services provided. (Attach. 13a) ¶¶ 3-5.)

            Novelty and Difficulty

            Plaintiff’s counsel states in the supplemental declaration that litigation for habitability defects against single family homeowners are generally difficult and seldom litigated. (Supplemental Declaration of Christian Oronsaye ISO Petition ¶ 26.)

            Amount Involved and Results Obtained

            Plaintiff’s counsel states that a $100,000 settlement is an exceptional result for litigation of habitability defects in a single family home. (Oronsaye Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 19-20.)

            Nature and Length of Professional Relationship

            Plaintiffs’ counsel have been representing Plaintiffs since February of 2022. (Attach. 13a Retainer Agreement.)

            Experience, Reputation, and Ability of Counsel

            Plaintiffs’ counsel states that he has been practicing in the area of tenants and habitability claims for “some time now” but provides no further elaboration. (Attach. 13a ¶ 8.)

            Time and Labor Required

            Plaintiffs’ counsel estimates that over 80 hours were incurred in litigating this matter. (Oronsaye Supp. Decl. ¶ 32.)

            Acceptance of Case Precluding Other Employment

            Plaintiffs’ counsel states that, because of the small size of their firm, they were precluded from taking on other matters while litigating this case. (¶¶ 35-36.)

            Contingent Fee

            Plaintiffs’ counsel states this case was taken strictly on a contingency basis, and “most” costs and expenses were borne by Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Attach 13a. ¶ 4.)

            The Court finds, based upon this showing, that Plaintiff’s counsel has now adequately demonstrated the reasonableness of this fee award.

Medical Bills:

            No medical expenses have been incurred. (Petition ¶ 12.)

Costs

Petitioners’ counsel is seeking to recover $1,250 in fees and for each of the petitions, for a total of $2,500 in attorney’s fees. (Petition ¶¶13a, 17f.)

Amount to Be Paid to Minor:

The net amount to be paid to each minor claimant is $3,750.00. (Petition ¶ 15.)

Court Appearance:

            California Rule of Court 7.952 requires attendance by the petitioner and claimant unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance. The Court finds that the appearance of the claimants Bryson K. Patterson and Bailee R. Morrow are not required due to their age.

Disposition of Balance of Proceeds:

            The petitions request that the balance of the proceeds be paid to the parent of the minors, Brianna Monee Washington, pursuant to Probate Code sections 3401 and 3402, without bond. (Attach. 18b(5).) The petitions provide the name and address of the parent who is to receive the money. (Id.)

Proposed Order MC-351:

            Petitioners have filed a Proposed Order Form MC-351 for each minor claimant.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the settlement of these minors’ claims is be fair and reasonable, such that the compromise of these claims should be approved.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, the Petitions for Approval of Minor’s Compromise of the Pending Action are GRANTED

Moving Parties to give notice.

//

//

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2023                              ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.