Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 22STCV27841, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV27841, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27841 Hearing Date: April 25, 2024 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: April 25, 2024 TRIAL DATE: VACATED

CASE: Brenda Manuel Guzman, et al. v. 6604 West Blvd LLC, et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCV27841

PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Brenda Manuel Guzman as parent and Guardian ad Litem for Hailee Guzman Martinez.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 4/22/24

CASE HISTORY:

· 02/01/23: Complaint filed.

· 04/25/23: Case deemed related to Case No. 23STCV001663, designated as lead case.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a habitability action. Plaintiffs, who are and were tenants at a residential apartment building, allege that Defendants permitted the premises to develop extensive uninhabitable conditions and allowed those conditions to persist in violation of statutes and municipal ordinances. Plaintiffs seek monetary and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff Brenda Manuel Guzman, as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Hailee Guzman Martinez, petitions for approval of a compromise of the minor’s claims.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise of Claims is CONTINUED to May 23, 2024 at 9:00 AM. Plaintiffs are directed to serve and file an amended petition correcting the deficiencies identified in this ruling no later than Thursday, May 23, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff Brenda Manuel Guzman, as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Hailee Guzman Martinez (age 12) 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 petition has 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 family of two adults and two minor children. (Attach. 13a ¶ 2 [Declaration of Christofer Chapman ISO Petition].) The petition does not account for the full scope of the settlement between the parties. Although Paragraph 11 states that the total amount offered to others is $277,500, the spreadsheet purporting to be an itemized accounting appears to reference unrelated individuals. (See ¶ 11, Attach. 11.) Moreover, although paragraphs 10a and 10b contend that the minor will be receiving a gross settlement of $12,500, paragraph 10c states that the gross is only $10,000, although the calculation of the net settlement minus fees and costs ($9,262.12, after $150.51 in costs and $3,087.37 in fees) appears to reflect the $12,500 gross. (¶ 10.) This calculation is consistent throughout the Petition. However, the Petition must clearly and consistently state the settlement amount and must describe the settlement with the correct parties.

Attorney’s Fees

Setting aside the deficiency in paragraphs 10 and 11 and attachment 11, 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(2).)

Petitioner’s counsel is seeking to recover $3,087.37 in attorney’s fees on the petition, representing 25% of the minor’s gross settlement award (assuming a $12,500 settlement), plus $150.51 in costs, for a total of $3,237.88. (See Petition ¶ 16e.) Counsel has provided a 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

(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 does not speak to the reasonableness of the fees sought in proportion to the services provided. However, Plaintiffs’ counsel does state that the greater amounts allocated to the adult Plaintiffs account for claims for breach of contract, medical expenses, property damage, out-of-pocket costs, and other losses not suffered by the minor children. (Attach. 13 ¶ 3.)

Novelty and Difficulty

Plaintiff’s counsel does not speak to the novelty of this action, but states that this case involved numerous client meetings, site inspections, depositions, mediation sessions, court appearances, and written discovery, and involved evaluation of complex coverage issues, including multiple policy exclusions and application of multiple policies for multiple owners. (Attach. 13 ¶ 5.)

Amount Involved and Results Obtained

Plaintiff’s counsel does not directly address this factor.

Nature and Length of Professional Relationship

Plaintiffs’ counsel has been representing Plaintiffs for approximately two years. (Attach. 13 ¶ 4.)

Experience, Reputation, and Ability of Counsel

Plaintiffs’ counsel testifies to his experience, reputation, training, and skills. (Attach 13 ¶ 1.)

Time and Labor Required

Plaintiffs’ counsel has been working this case for over two years and estimates approximately 15 hours of attorney time expended on behalf of the minors. (Attach. 13 ¶ 5.)

Acceptance of Case Precluding Other Employment

Plaintiffs’ counsel does not address whether acceptance of this case precluded other employment.

Contingent Fee

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

The Court finds that, although Plaintiffs’ counsel has not addressed all the factors, Plaintiffs’ counsel has adequately demonstrated the reasonableness of the fee award, conditioned on Plaintiffs presenting the Court with an amended petition correcting paragraphs 10 and 11 and attachment 11.

Medical Bills:

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

Costs

Attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,087.37, plus costs in the amount of $150.51, which are owed by Petitioner, will be paid by the claimant, for a total of $3,237.88 in costs. (Petition ¶ 16.)

Amount to Be Paid to Minor:

The net amount to be paid to the minor claimant is $9,262.12 (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 claimant Hailee Guzman Martinez is not required due to her age.

Prognosis:

The minor has completely recovered from her injuries. (Petition ¶ 8.)

Disposition of Balance of Proceeds:

The petition requests that the balance of the proceeds be deposited into an insured account in a financial institution in the state subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court (Petition ¶ 18b.) Attachment 18b(2) states that the funds will be deposited with JP Morgan Chase at 401 E. Ocean Blvd, Long Beach, CA 90802. (Attach. 18b(2).) The petition does not identify the specific branch of JP Morgan Chase with which the funds are to be deposited. The specific branch of this institution must be identified.

Proposed Order MC-351:

Petitioner has filed a Proposed Order Form MC-351 for the minor claimant.

The deficiencies identified by the Court above preclude the Court issuing a finding that the settlement is fair and adequate at this time. The Court will therefore continue this matter to Thursday, May 23, 2024, at 9:00 AM to permit Plaintiffs to file and serve an Amended Petition correcting the deficiencies identified herein.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, the Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise of Claims is CONTINUED to May 23, 2024 at 9:00 AM. Plaintiffs are directed to serve and file an amended petition correcting the deficiencies identified in this ruling no later than Thursday, May 23, 2024.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2024 ___________________________________

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.