Judge Wesley L. Hsu, Case 19PSCV00306 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

This is an unlawful detainer action involving the premises located at 13065 Amar Road, Baldwin Park, CA 91706 (“subject property”).

On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff Lauren Celine Torres (“Torres”) filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action for Unlawful Detainer against Jose Lopez (“Lopez”), Maria Zarate (“Zarate”), All Unknown/Unnamed Persons Claiming Possession of the Premises and Does 1-10.

On April 3, 2019, Lopez and Zarate filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Torres, Adam McDaniel (“McDaniel”) and Does 1-50 for:

On April 12, 2019, this case was deemed related to Case No. 18WCUD03089; this case was designated as the lead case. On November 5, 2019, the cases were consolidated.

On November 5, 2019, McDaniel filed a Notice of Appeal as to the court’s September 12, 2019 order denying his anti-SLAPP motion. On July 27, 2021, the remittitur was filed (affirmed).

On January 31, 2022, McDaniel filed a Notice of Appeal as to the court’s December 3, 2021 order on anti-SLAPP attorney’s fees.

On May 24, 2022, a conditional “Notice of Settlement of Entire Case” was filed.

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (Prob. Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) California Rules of Court Rule 7.950 provides that a petition “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.” (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) Rule 7.950 states that the Petition must be filed 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).

Petitioner Maria Zarate (“Petitioner”) seeks court approval of a settlement between minor

claimants Rosa M. Correa (“Rosa”), Guadalupe Correa (“Guadalupe”), Elizabeth Lopez

(“Elizabeth”) and Jose Lopez Jr. (“Jose Jr.”) (collectively, “minor claimants”), on

the one hand, and Torres and McDaniel, on the other hand, in the total amount of $0.

At the outset, the court notes that on November 28, 2022, Judge Hernandez denied Petitioner’s

previous “Petition[s] for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds

of Judgment for Minor” brought on behalf of the minor claimants; the court’s ruling states, in

“The court queries why the instant petitions have been filed in the first instance.

Petitioner represents, in each of the respective petitions, that the claims of the

minor claimants are the subject of a ‘pending action or proceeding’ and then

references the instant case. The minor claimants, then, do not have a ‘disputed

claim’ for purposes of Probate Code § 3500[1]. With that said, the court notes

Code of Civil Procedure § 372, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that

‘[w]hen a minor, a person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions, or a person

for whom a conservator has been appointed is a party, that person shall appear

either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed

by the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in

each case . . .’ (Emphasis added). ‘If the claim is the subject of pending litigation,

guardian ad litem, and in that case the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 372 . . . apply

Also, Petitioner states in Attachment 18b(8) of each of the respective petitions that

‘Claimant is not a party to this lawsuit. The filing of a minor’s compromise is part

of the Parties’ settlement agreement.’ (Emphasis added.) This representation, of

the instant date in order to afford the parties the opportunity to file supplemental

briefing on this issue. On November 14, 2022, the parties filed a joint supplemental

brief, wherein they essentially contend that the minor children, though not named in

the case caption, were nevertheless parties to the lawsuit as evidenced by their

Petitioner’s express statement that ‘Claimant[s] [are] not a party to this lawsuit.’

Further, this position fails to take into account that it requires compliance with Code

of Civil Procedure § 372, which has not been made. The petitions are denied on this

Petitioner here represents that she is the parent of the minor claimants and that the claims of the

minor claimants are the subject of a “pending action or proceeding,” which is the instant case. Again, Lopez and Zarate individually are the only named plaintiffs in the operative complaint filed April 3, 2019. Again, Petitioner expressly states in Attachment 18b(8) of the petition pertaining to minor claimant Rosa that “Claimant is not a party to this lawsuit. The filing of a minor’s compromise is part of the Parties’ settlement agreement.” (Emphasis added.) Petitioner’s statements are contradictory with respect to minor claimant Rosa; as such, the petition re: Rosa is denied.

Petitioner states, in Attachment 18b(8) petition pertaining to minor claimants Guadalupe, Elizabeth and Jose Jr., that “[a]lthough the minor children are not named in the caption to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the body of the Complaint alleges personal injuries and property damages not only suffered by Plaintiffs but by their minor Children.” This statement is consistent with Petitioner’s earlier statement that the claims of minor claimants Guadalupe, Elizabeth and Jose Jr. are the subject of a “pending action or proceeding,” which is the instant case.

“It should require no argument to sustain the view that in determining who the parties to an action are the whole body of the complaint is to be taken into account, and not the caption merely.” (Nelson v. East Side Grocery Co. (1915) 26 Cal.App. 344, 347; see also Plumlee v. Poag (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 541, 547 [“It has been uniformly held in our state that in order to determine the identity of a party courts are entitled to take into consideration the allegations of the complaint as well as the title”] and Miller v. Superior Court in and for Riverside County (1914) 26 Cal.App. 41, 44 [“We do hold, however, that, in determining the identity of a party plaintiff, the allegations of the complaint may be looked to as well as the title . . . as the complaint disclosed the identity of the real party in whose favor the action was being prosecuted, the petitioner might have asked the court to require an amendment to be made which would clearly describe the name of the real party in interest”].)

The court, then, will proceed to a review of the petitions as to minor claimants Guadalupe, Elizabeth and Jose, as follows: The petitions are properly filed on the Judicial Council form and are executed by Petitioner. The petitions explain that minor claimants Guadalupe, Elizabeth and Jose suffered from cockroach bites and reactions to cockroaches, that they received medical examinations and were prescribed an ointment for skin irritation, and that they have each recovered completely from the effects of these injuries and there are no permanent injuries. (Petitions, ¶¶ 6-8.)

Torres and McDaniel have offered to pay 0 to settle minor claimants Guadalupe’s, Elizabeth’s and Jose’s claims. (Id., ¶ 10). Torres and McDaniel, however, have offered to pay $15,000.00 to Petitioner and Jose Lopez to settle claims arising out of the same incident that resulted in minor claimants Guadalupe’s, Elizabeth’s and Jose’s injuries. (Id., ¶ 11).

Petitioner, however, appears to provide inconsistent information as to minor claimants Guadalupe’s, Elizabeth’s and Jose’s medical expenses in each of the respective petitions. Although Petitioner represents that minor claimants Guadalupe’s, Elizabeth’s and Jose’s medical expenses, including medical expenses paid by Petitioner, Medicare, Medi-Cal, and private insurers, to be paid or reimbursed from proceeds of settlement or judgment are 0, Petitioner, under ¶ 12(b)(4), indicates that “[m]edical expenses were paid and are to be reimbursed from the proceeds as follows: . . . “[p]aid by Medi-Cal in the amount of: “. (Id., ¶ 12). Petitioner appears to have furnished incomplete information to the court in this regard. Petitioner has checked ¶ 14(a) in each of the respective petitions regarding notice to the Director of Health Care Services, but has not provided the court with any information regarding a Medi-Cal demand letter or agreement. Petitioner has also checked ¶ 12(b)(f)(i) in each of the respective petitions but has not provided any other information under ¶ 12(b).

The total amount of attorney’s fees for which court approval is requested is $6,750.00. (Id., ¶13a.) There is no attorney declaration attached as Attachment 13a to any of the respective petitions. Counsel has attached a copy of the retainer agreement as Attachment 17a.

The total amount of costs (other than medical expenses) to be reimbursed from proceeds of the settlement is $3,080.72. Petitioner requests that the balance of the proceeds (i.e., $5,169.28) be paid directly to Jose Lopez and herself. Attachment 18b(5) of Elizabeth’s petition is incomplete.

The court is inclined to continue the hearing on Guadalupe’s, Elizabeth’s and Jose’s respective petitions so that Petitioner may file supplemental papers addressing the language italicized above. The court will hear from Petitioner’s counsel at the time of the hearing in this regard.

[1] Probate Code § 3500 provides, in relevant part, that “[w]hen a minor has a disputed claim for damages, money, or other property and does not have a guardian of the estate, the following persons have the right to compromise, or to execute a covenant not to sue on or a covenant not to enforce judgment on, the claim, unless the claim is against such person or persons: (1) Either parent if the parents of the minor are not living separate and apart. (2) The parent having the care, custody, or control of the minor if the parents of the minor are living separate and apart. . .”