Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV02680, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV02680    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: 31

EXPEDITED PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF MINOR IS CONTINUED 

Background 

On January 24, 2019, Plaintiffs Angelita Baisley as an individual and Guardian Ad Litem for minors Alex Pineda and Jose Pineda, brought an action against Mike Fabian and Lili M. Fabian as Survivors Trust under the Edison and Dorthy Fabian Family Trust and its business entity known as Starline Real Estate, Inc.; Carrie Jayn Randall dba Asset Property Management, and Does 1 to 20. 

Angelita Baisley and her two (2) children were tenants at a property owned and/or managed by Defendants. Defendants maintained the property in a substandard condition, causing Plaintiffs to move out in October/November 2017, at significant expense. Plaintiffs were formally evicted thereafter in February 2018, and timely brought this action thereafter. 

On September 08, 2022, Petitioner Angelita Baisley filed an Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of minor Alex Pineda.

Discussion 

This is an expedited petition without hearings, which is permitted under California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5, so long as Petitioner Angelita Baisley (“Petitioner”) uses the required Judicial Council forms (MC-350EX) and meets certain conditions.  The settlement must not exceed $50,000.  

Petitioner requests that $5,826.80 be paid or delivered to her as the guardian ad litem for the benefit of the minor pursuant to Probate Code section 3900 et seq. and 3611(d). (MC-351.) The total settlement amount is $50,000. (MC-350EX attachment 11c.). Since Petitioner bore most of the damages, namely relocation expenses and other financial damages, Petitioner will receive 60% of Settlement and the two minor children will each receive 20%. (Id. Attachment 12.) 

According to the declaration by Richard Lloyd Sherman, Plaintiffs’ counsel, under the retainment agreement counsel is entitled to 45% of any and all amounts recovered. (Attachment 14). A copy of the retainer agreement is attached as Exhibit A to attachment 14. Plaintiff’s counsel has agreed to voluntarily reduce the fee to “a percentage of thirty-three (33) and one-third (1/3rd)”. (Id.) Counsel represents that amount is less than $46,2777.25, the amount that would have been due if counsel were charging an hourly fee. (Id.) Exclusive of costs, counsel will receive a total of $24,366.02 in attorney’s fees. (MC-350EX attachment 18b.) 

The costs incurred total $4,199.36. (MC-350EX attachment 14.) The Petitioner will bear 60% of the costs while the two minor children will each bear 20% ($2,519.62 + $839.87 + $839.87 = $4,199.36.). (Id. ¶ 7.) Minor Alex Pineda’s gross recovery is $10,000.00 and net recovery is $5,826.80, with counsel recovering $3,333.33 in attorney’s fees and $839.87 in costs. (MC-350EX item 17.) Plaintiff’s counsel provided sufficient information to explain why the attorney’s fees requested are reasonable. 

However, under item 18, Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts he was representing or employed by another party involved in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ counsel was required to submit Attachment 18a, which he failed to do. 

Conclusion 

The Court will continue this matter to September 22, to allow Petitioner to file the required Attachment 18a.