Case Number: BC494362 Hearing Date: May 13, 2014 Dept: 34

Moving Party: Petitioners Guadalupe Mariela Molina, Tania Abigail Palencia, Gricelda Dalila Ramirez Jimenez, Alma Amarilis Chavarria Teo, and Edna Julieta Vasquez Barrios

Resp. Party: None

Petitioners’ petitions for approval of the compromise of a disputed claim are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiffs commenced this action on October 24, 2012, against defendants for: (1) violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; (2) tortious breach of warranty of habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4) violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200; and (5) negligence.

Plaintiffs are tenants of a residential property owned, managed, and/or controlled by defendants. (Compl., ¶¶ 1-3.) The subject property has been the subject of multiple inspections by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and the Los Angeles Housing Department that resulted in citations against defendants for multiple violations of the County Code, the Health and Safety Code, and the Los Angeles Municipal Code. (Id., ¶¶ 7-9.) These violations included deteriorated flooring, walls, ceilings, and cabinets; inadequate fire protection; faulty electrical wires and outlets; inadequate heating and ventilation; improper sewage disposal, walls, and ceilings; inoperable doors and windows; excessive odors; deteriorated plumbing systems; dampness; and infestations of cockroaches, bed bugs, and rodents. (Id., ¶¶ 10, 12-14.) Plaintiffs notified and complained to defendants about these habitability violations, but defendants failed to correct the conditions. (Id., ¶¶ 15-16.)

ANALYSIS:
Petitioners seek approval of compromises on behalf of claimants Jorge Luis Villegas, Christopher D’Shawn Terry II, Victor Santiago Cardona Ramirez, Odell Santiago Cardona Ramirez, Smiling Villanueva, Katherine Anai Gomez Vasquez, and Jerik Alek Villanueva Chavarria.

The complaint, filed on behalf of 17 tenants in a sub-standard apartment building, raises various breach of habitability claims. Ten of the plaintiffs are adults; seven are children.

Pursuant to Probate Code § 3600(a)(2), a court may approve a compromise of a pending action or proceeding to which a minor or person with a disability is a party. Upon making such an Order,

[t]he court . . . shall make a further order authorizing and directing that reasonable expenses, medical or otherwise and including reimbursement to a parent, guardian, or conservator, costs, and attorney’s fees, as the court shall approve and allow therein, shall be paid from the money or other property to be paid or delivered for the benefit of the minor or person with a disability.

(Probate Code § 3601(a).)

The petitions state that defendants JB Delano Property LLC and SHM Holding Inc. agree to pay a total settlement amount of $130,000.00. (Pets., ¶ 11.) The claimants will each receive $1,000.00 from this amount. (Ibid.) No medical expenses are to be reimbursed from the payments. (See id., ¶ 13.) The adults are receiving $58,786.98, with the plaintiffs in each of the seven units receiving equal shares of $8,398.14

The petitions indicate that the payments will be deposited in insured accounts in one or more institutions in this state, subject to withdrawal only upon authorization of this Court. (Pets., ¶ 19(b)(2).) Petitioners are required to include as Attachment 19b(2) the name, branch, and address of the depository. (Ibid.) The petitions include such attachments. (Id., Attachment 19b(2).)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 7.953(a),

in any case in which the court orders that funds to be received by a minor . . . must be deposited in a financial institution and not disturbed without further order of the court, the order must include a provision that a certified or filed endorsed copy of the order must be delivered to a manager at the financial institution where the funds are to be deposited, and that a receipt from the financial institution must be promptly filed with the court, acknowledging receipt of both the funds deposited and the order for deposit of funds.

The proposed orders to deposit money into blocked accounts substantially comply with this provision. (See Proposed Orders to Deposit Money Into Blocked Account, ¶ 6.)

Petitioners do not seek attorney’s fees from the amounts recovered by the claimants. Petitioners provide a copy of the fee agreement with counsel, which states that plaintiffs agreed to a contingency percentage of 45%. (See Pets., Attachment 18a.) Counsel are basing their contingency fee on the recovery received by the parents, and are not including the $7,000 requested for the minor children in the calculation of their contingent fee.

The petitions include explanations as to the settlement payments to others. (See Pets., Attachment 12b; attached declarations.) The petitions include summaries as to the net balance due to each claimant. (Pets., ¶¶ 16-17.)

The petitions are GRANTED.