Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV02188, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02188    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     April 2, 2024              TRIAL DATE: VACATED

CASE:                         Selina Spraggins , et al. v. Pama V Properties LP, et al.

CASE NO.:                 23STCV02188           

PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Elda Manuela Velasquez, as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Arlyn Jared Martinez Velasquez

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 3/27/24

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 the Chesapeake Apartments, a residential apartment complex, 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 Elda Manuela Velasquez, as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Arlyn Jared Martinez Velasquez, petitions for approval of a compromise of the minor’s claims.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition for Approval of Minors’ Compromise of Claims is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

            Plaintiff Elda Manuela Velasquez, as parent and Guardian ad Litem of Arlyn Jared Martinez Velasquez (age 15) 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 three adults and one minor child. (Declaration of Zaina Alfi ISO Petitions ¶ 4.) Pursuant to the settlement with Defendants, Victor Rene Martinez Sampson and Elda Manuela Velasquez will each receive $65,403.85, Axel Yahir Martinez Velasquez will receive $55,769.23, and the minor will receive $36,500. (Id. Exh. C.)

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(2).)

Petitioner’s counsel is seeking to recover $10,950.00 in attorney’s fees on the petition, representing 30% of the minor’s gross settlement award, plus $407.94 in costs, for a total of $11,357.94. (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

   (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 30% of the sum recovered on behalf of the minor claimants is a reasonable fee in proportion to the services provided and is less than the 40% contingency rate for the adults. (Alfi Decl. ¶ 32(a).) Plaintiffs’ counsel states that the greater amounts allocated to the adult Plaintiffs accounts for claims for back rent, statutory damages, and emotional distress arising from concern for the health and development of their children.

            Novelty and Difficulty

            Plaintiff’s counsel contends that this habitability action was both novel and difficult because of the number of parties, claims, and applicable regulations. (Alfi Decl. ¶ 32(b).)

            Amount Involved and Results Obtained

            Plaintiff’s counsel does not directly address this factor, but the attached accounting of the full settlement demonstrates that this case settled for nearly $2.4 million. (Alfi Decl. Exh. C.)

            Nature and Length of Professional Relationship

            Plaintiffs’ counsel has been representing Plaintiffs since 2023. (Alfi Decl. ¶ 32(c).)

            Experience, Reputation, and Ability of Counsel

            Plaintiffs’ counsel testifies to the experience, reputation, training, and skills of the several attorneys involved with this case. (Alfi Decl. ¶¶ 28 p.13 - ¶ 34 p.14.)

            Time and Labor Required

            Plaintiffs’ counsel has been working this case for over one year, and state that it involved extensive investigation, discovery, negotiation, and substantive motion practice, accounting for some 1,000 hours. (Id. ¶ 30 p. 9.)

            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. (Id. ¶ 32(g).)

            The Court finds that, although Plaintiffs’ counsel has not addressed all the factors, Plaintiffs’ counsel has adequately demonstrated the reasonableness of the fee award.

Medical Bills:

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

Costs

            Attorney’s fees in the amount of $10,950.00, plus costs in the amount of $407.94, which are owed by Petitioner, will be paid by the claimant, for a total of $11,357.94 in costs. (Petition ¶ 16.)

Amount to Be Paid to Minor:

The net amount to be paid to the minor claimant is $25,142.06. (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 Arlyn Jared Martinez Velasquez is not required due to his age.

Prognosis:

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

Disposition of Balance of Proceeds:

            The petition requests that the balance of the proceeds be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court. (Petition ¶ 18b.) The petitions include the terms and conditions of that annuity. (Attach. 18b(5).)

Proposed Order MC-351:

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

The Court finds the settlement to be fair and adequate. As the petition is procedurally in order, the Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, the Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise of Claims is GRANTED.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 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.