Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 07:50:08 (UTC).

ARTEMIO PEREZ ET AL VS JS UNION LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/25/2017 ARTEMIO PEREZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against JS UNION LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1094

  • Filing Date:

    10/25/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

HERNANDEZ MARIA

PEREZ ARTEMIO

Defendants and Respondents

YAZDI SHAHIN

JS UNION LLC

LOCALI MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC

DOES 1 TO 50

CASHIO PROPERTIES

Minors

PEREZ ARTEMIO ASAEL

PEREZ KATIHANA

Plaintiff and Guardian Ad Litem

PEREZ ARTEMIO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Minor, Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MONTES DE OCA CHRISTOPHER

YADEGARIAN ARTIN

MONTES DE OCA CHRISTOPHER RENE

Defendant Attorney

ROSENTHAL SHARI LYNNE

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/16/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3/9/2018: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

2/7/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Minute Order

2/22/2019: Minute Order

Order Granting Attorney"s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

3/18/2019: Order Granting Attorney"s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Request for Judicial Notice

4/30/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Substitution of Attorney

5/8/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney

5/16/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Unknown

5/28/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

5/28/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

6/5/2019: Minute Order

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

12/28/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

1/5/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

1/5/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

11/17/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

11/17/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

Unknown

10/25/2017: Unknown

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

10/25/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

31 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Motion of Plaintiff Artemio Asael Perez for Trial Preference) of 05/28/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Motion of Plaintiff Artemio Asael Perez for Trial Preference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Reply (PLAINTIFF?S REPLY TO DEFENDANT?S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF ARTEMIO ASAEL PEREZ?S MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE; SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER MONTES DE OCA); Filed by Artemio Asael Perez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by LOCALI MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Opposition (DEFENDANT JS UNION, LLC?S OPPOSITION TO MINOR PLAINTIFF ARTEMIO ASAEL PEREZ?S MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE); Filed by JS UNION LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by CASHIO PROPERTIES (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by SHAHIN YAZDI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
47 More Docket Entries
  • 11/17/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIV1L

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Maria Hernandez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • Receipt; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC681094    Hearing Date: August 19, 2020    Dept: 28

Petition to Approve a Minor’s Compromise

Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposing papers have been filed. 

BACKGROUND

On October 25, 2017, Plaintiffs Artemio Perez, Maria Hernandez, Artemio Asael Perez, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Artemio Perez, Katihana Perez, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Artemio Perez, Yajaira Perez, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Artemio Perez, Elma Perez, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Artemio Perez, and Paulina Perez, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Artemio Perez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants JS Union, LLC, Locali Management Group, LLC, Shahin Yazdi, and Cashio Properties.  In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege for breach of lease agreement, tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability, statutory breach of warranty of habitability, negligence, premises liability, violation of LAMC §1501.04 and Civil Code §1947.11 – charging excessive rent, nuisance, collection of rent on substandard dwelling (Civil Code section 1942.4), constructive eviction, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200.

On March 9, 2018, Defendants JS Union, LLC, Locali Management Group, LLC, Shahin Yazdi, and Cashio Properties (collectively “Defendants”) filed an answer to the complaint. 

On July 16, 2020, the Court denied Petitioner Artemio Perez’s (“Petitioner”) petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Artemio Asael Perez (“Claimant”).

On July 27, 2020, Petitioner filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is scheduled for September 24, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Petitioner asks the Court to grant a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 7.952, subdivision (a), Petitioner and Claimant are required to attend the hearing on the petition.  However, the Court finds that Petitioner’s and Claimant’s attendance are not required due to Claimant’s age and the settlement amount.

DISCUSSION

On July 16, 2020, the Court found five deficiencies in Petitioner’s previous petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant.  The Court turns to the newly filed petition in considering whether those deficiencies are alleviated.

First, the Court found in its July 16, 2020 ruling that Petitioner did not provide the Court with sufficient information regarding Minor’s condition and continued treatment (if any).  The newly filed petition references a supplemental declaration of Christopher Montes de Oca.  (Petition, ¶¶ 8, 9c.)  Christopher Montes de Oca declares that Claimant’s injuries are permanent and Claimant will not benefit from further speech therapy.  (Oca Decl., ¶¶ 32, 59.) July 16, 2020 ruling.

Second, the Court found in its July 16, 2020 ruling that Petitioner did not adequately explain why he is receiving $630,000.00 of the $1,750,000.00 global settlement. (Petition §12; Attachment 12.)  Christopher Montes de Oca declares this apportionment is a result of a number of factors.  (Oca Decl., 59.)  Petitioner’s counsel was able to convince the carrier to pay for an attorney fee expert, which was paid to Petitioner.  (Ibid.)  Petitioner witnessed his entire family suffer.  (Ibid.)  And most importantly, this allocation allows Petitioner and his family to move to a better home so his family would not still live in substandard housing.  (Ibid.)

The first two points are not convincing.  The carrier’s payment of certain expert fees is merely a settlement tool, not an explanation as to why Petitioner is justified to receive a certain amount of the settlement.  Moreover, all of Petitioner’s family saw each other suffer.

However, the Court finds that the allocation of the settlement for Petitioner to receive $630,000.00 is sufficiently justified in that it would enable Petitioner and his family to move into defect free housing.  As such, Petitioner has remedied the second deficiency the Court identified in its July 16, 2020 ruling.

Third, the Court found in its July 16, 2020 ruling that Petitioner did not establish that all of the costs listed in Attachment 14b (totaling $70,688.36) should be attributed solely to Minor and did not identify what costs, if any, are being attributed to the other Settling Plaintiffs.  An updated list of costs shows Claimant’s gross settlement is to pay for $62,512.60 in costs.  Attachment 14b explains which of the individual expenses represent Petitioner’s pro rata share.  (Oca Decl., 59.)  The other individual expenses are charged only to Claimant because they resulted from his unique lead poisoning and related lead claim.  (Ibid.)  The Court finds Petitioner has sufficiently fixed and explained the costs to be taken from Claimant’s gross settlement.

Fourth, the Court found in its July 16, 2020 ruling that the request for $388,000.00 in attorneys’ fees (40% of Minor’s gross settlement amount based on a contingency fee agreement) is excessive, especially considering there are multiple plaintiffs in this action, the case does not involve complex legal issues, the case settled before trial, and Claimant is a minor. (See CRC 7.955.)  Christopher Montes de Oca directs the Court’s attention to the Court’s April 29, 2020 ruling granting three requests for 40% attorney’s fees in expedited petitions.  This point is well taken, but does not fully explain why 40% attorney’s fees are justified here.  Claimant’s injuries are different and more serious than the other minor plaintiffs.  Furthermore, Claimant has alleged different causes of action than the other minor plaintiffs.

However, the Court finds Petitioner has justified the request for 40% in attorney’s fees.  An attorney’s fees expert, William M. Hensley, provided a detailed analysis as to why the request for 40% attorney’s fees is reasonable.  (Hensley Decl., 13-23.)  The Court finds this explanation to be sufficient in awarding the requested 40% of Claimant’s gross settlement in attorney’s fees.

Finally, the Court found in its July 16, 2020 ruling that Petitioner did not explain why he selected deposit of the funds in insured accounts instead of other potentially more beneficial alternatives. Christopher Montes de Oca declares that structured settlements were explored, but were not chosen due to the low rate of return and lack of insurance.  (Oca Decl., 59.)  Similarly, a statutory trust was not pursued because the uncertainty with the market and high fees associated with the trust.  (Ibid.)  Instead, having the net settlement split into $259,132.06 and $259,132.07 and deposited into two separate banks would allow insurance of up to $250,000 for each account.  (Ibid.; Attachment 19b(2).)  The Court finds this to be a reasonable explanation.

The Court finds the petition is properly approved.  All required attachments have been filed.  The settlement amount of $970,000 for Claimant’s permanent injuries is reasonable.  As stated above, the requested attorney’s fees of $388,000 are reasonable.  As also stated above, the requested $62,512.60 in costs are adequately explained.  As such, the petition is approved.

CONCLUSION

The petition is APPROVED.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: BC681094    Hearing Date: July 16, 2020    Dept: 28

Petition to Approve a Minor’s Compromise

Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposition has been filed. 

BACKGROUND

On October 25, 2017, Plaintiffs Artemio Perez, Maria Hernandez, Artemio Asael Perez, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Artemio Perez, Katihana Perez, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Artemio Perez, Yajaira Perez, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Artemio Perez, Elma Perez, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Artemio Perez, and Paulina Perez, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Artemio Perez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants JS Union, LLC, Locali Management Group, LLC, Shahin Yazdi, and Cashio Properties.  In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege for breach of lease agreement, tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability, statutory breach of warranty of habitability, negligence, premises liability, violation of LAMC §1501.04 and Civil Code §1947.11 – charging excessive rent, nuisance, collection of rent on substandard dwelling (Civil Code section 1942.4), constructive eviction, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200.

On March 9, 2018, Defendants JS Union, LLC, Locali Management Group, LLC, Shahin Yazdi, and Cashio Properties (collectively “Defendants”) filed an answer to the complaint. 

On March 3, 2020, Petitioner Artemio Perez filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Artemio Asael Perez.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Petitioner Artemio Perez (“Petitioner”) petitions for approval of Minor Claimant Artemio Asael Perez’s (“Minor”) settlement with Defendants in this action.  

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 372, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

When 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 caseThe guardian or conservator of the estate or guardian ad litem so appearing for any minor, person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions, or person for whom a conservator has been appointed shall have power, with the approval of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, to compromise the same, to agree to the order or judgment to be entered therein for or against the ward or conservatee, and to satisfy any judgment or order in favor of the ward or conservatee or release or discharge any claim of the ward or conservatee pursuant to that compromise. Money or other property to be paid or delivered pursuant to the order or judgment for the benefit of a minor, person lacking legal capacity to make decisions, or person for whom a conservator has been appointed shall be paid and delivered as provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 3600) of Part 8 of Division 4 of the Probate Code.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1384 provides, as follows:

(a) Petition for approval of the compromise of a claim A petition for court approval of a compromise or covenant not to sue under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with rules 7.950, 7.951, and 7.952. 

(b) Order for the deposit of funds and petition for withdrawal An order for the deposit of funds of a minor or a person with a disability, and a petition for the withdrawal of such funds, must comply with rules 7.953 and 7.954. 

DISCUSSION

There are several issues with the Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise.

First, Petitioner did not provide the Court with sufficient information regarding Minor’s condition and continued treatment (if any).  The Petition indicates Minor suffered permanent phonologic disorder as a result of lead poisoning, Minor received medical treatment for the lead poisoning and speech therapy for his phonologic disorder, and Minor has not completely recovered from the effects of the injury and the phonologic disorder is permanent. (Petition §§7-9.)  Petitioner did not identify whether Minor needs additional treatment for the phonologic disorder, what treatment is needed, if any, and how long Minor will need such treatment, the costs of the treatment, and how the treatment will be paid for.

Second, Petitioner did not adequately explain why he is receiving $630,000.00 of the $1,750,000.00 global settlement. (Petition §12; Attachment 12.)  Attachment 12 states the “Reasons for the apportionment of the settlement payments between the claimant and each other plaintiff are based on the fact that Artemio Asael Perez has lead poisoning which lead to a permanent phonologic disorder and Artemio Perez was awarded attorney fees in the action.”  (Petition; Attachment 12.) (Emphasis Added.) Petitioner did not provide a copy of the written settlement agreement, if any, or adequately explain why Petitioner is receiving such a large portion of the settlement.  The claim that Petitioner was awarded attorneys’ fees is insufficient, especially considering Petitioner did not identify award of attorneys’ fees at issue, the amount of the award, what portion of his settlement is attributable to the attorneys’ fees award, and why the attorneys’ fees reimbursement was not applied to reduce the amount of attorneys’ fees sought from Minor’s settlement.

Third, Petitioner did not establish that all of the costs listed in Attachment 14b (totaling $70,688.36) should be attributed solely to Minor and did not identify what costs, if any, are being attributed to the other Settling Plaintiffs.  (Petition §14; Attachment 14b.)

Fourth, the request for $388,000.00 in attorneys’ fees (40% of Minor’s gross settlement amount based on a contingency fee agreement) is excessive, especially considering there are multiple plaintiffs in this action, the case does not involve complex legal issues, the case settled before trial, and Claimant is a minor. (See CRC 7.955.)  Moreover, Petitioner did not identify how much of his settlement is being allocated for attorneys’ fees.  The Petition does not contain Attachment 18f.  (Petition §18.)

Finally, Petitioner wants the funds deposited in two separate bank accounts, with him as the Trustee.  (Petition ¶19; Attachment 19b(2).)  The Minor is only six years old.  Petitioner did not explain why he selected deposit of the funds in insured accounts instead of other potentially more beneficial alternatives.

CONCLUSION

The petition is DENIED.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MONTES DE OCA CHRISTOPHER