ELIZABETH SALAS MONTEALEGRE, ET AL. VS SOLA IMPACT FUND II, LP, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******8342 Hearing Date: December 16, 2022 Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 16, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Seal

(2) Petitions for Minor’s Compromise

T/R: THE MOTION TO SEAL IS GRANTED.

THE PETITIONS ARE GRANTED.

PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:30 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

A. Motion to Seal

The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (CRC Rule 2.550(d).) “The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (CRC Rule 2.551(b)(1).)

The Sola Defendants move to seal the amount of the settlement between the Sola Defendants and Plaintiffs. Defendants assert that the parties agreed the settlement amount would be confidential. This overrides the public’s interest in the settlement amount. Defendants have satisfied the requirements of the rule.

The motion to seal is GRANTED.

B. Petitions for Minor’s Compromise

Compromises of disputed claims brought by minors are governed in part by CCP 372. The statute allows a guardian ad litem to appear in court on behalf of a minor claimant and gives the guardian ad litem the power to compromise the minor’s claim “with the approval of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending.” A petition for court approval of a compromise 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 or covenant. (CRC Rule 7.950.)

CRC Rule 7.952(a) requires the attendance of the petitioner and claimant at the hearing on the compromise of the claim unless the court for good causes dispenses with their personal appearance.

“Neither section 372 nor the California Rules of Court (rules 7.950 & 7.952) contemplates a noticed motion and adversary hearing when court approval of a minor's compromise is sought. Although we need not decide the question, it would appear that a petition to approve or disapprove a minor's compromise may be decided by the superior court, ex parte, in chambers.” (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1337.)

Petitioners seek court approval for a settlement from the Sola Defendants under which minor claimants each would receive 8.5% of the total settlement. 30% will be deducted for attorneys’ fees. The settlement funds will be placed in CalAble accounts.

This is a landlord-tenant action involving allegations of uninhabitable conditions. Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds that the individual settlements are fair in light alleged injuries sustained by claimants. The Court finds the attorney’s fees reasonable.

The petitions are GRANTED.

Case Number: *******8342 Hearing Date: November 9, 2022 Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 9, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Determine Good Faith Settlement

Moving Party: Defendants Artoor Moses, Maximum Realty & Property, and Amdiak LLC

Responding Party: None

T/R: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FOR APPROVAL OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers.[1]

Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors upon giving notice in the manner provided in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1005(b). (CCP 877.6(a)(1).) A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. (CCP 877.6 (c).) The party contesting the settlement bears the burden of proving that the settlement is in bad faith. (CCP 877.6 (d).)

Defendants Artoor Moses, Maximum Realty & Property, and Amdiak LLC

apply for approval of their good faith settlement with Plaintiffs. The parties engaged in settlement negotiations via mediation; Defendants agreed to settle with Plaintiffs for their insurance policy limit of $100,000. Defendants admit no fault but state the settlement is proportionate to their potential share of liability. There is no challenge the settlement. The Court finds that the settlement is in good faith.

The application is GRANTED.