Angel Castro v. Onell Gibson, et al.

appeal thereon, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees." (Decl., Brenda Joy, Ex. 1). Here, Plaintiff was the prevailing party as to its Unlawful Detainer Complaint because it prevailed in obtaining possession of the subject premises.

"The trial court has "broad authority" to determine the amount of a reasonable attorneys' fees. PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095. "[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate." Id. ["California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys' fee award."]. "The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong." Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132 (internal quotation omitted.)

Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' fees under the lodestar method based on the reasonable amount of time the attorney spent multiplied by a reasonable rate. Plaintiff requests the following: $10,462.50 in attorney's fees through trial and $2,192.83 in costs. Plaintiff has provided, in the declaration of Anthony Burton, a full and detained accounting of the time and expenses incurred in this action. (Decl., Anthony Burton, P.P. 12-15). Counsel states that the hourly rate of the attorneys is $350 per hour. (Id. at P. 14).

The Court finds that the hourly rate and time expended were reasonable considering the nature of this case, that the case was contested by the opposing side, and that the matter eventually was adjudicated with a motion for summary judgment. Defendant failed to file any written opposition to the motion, and thus failed to challenge, with any competent evidence, the reasonableness of the amount of attorneys' fees requested by moving party. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs is granted. Plaintiff's attorneys' fees are fixed at $10,426.50. Costs are recoverable via the memorandum of costs which sets forth costs in the amount of $2,192.83. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT - SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Amy N. Carter Department M Tuesday - September 8, 2026 Calendar No. PROCEEDINGS Angel Castro v. Onell Gibson, et al.

1. Yvonne Lopez's, Guardian Ad Litem for Angel Castro, Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim of Minor TENTATIVE RULING Yvonne Lopez's, Guardian Ad Litem for Angel Castro, Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim of Minor is granted.

Background

Plaintiffs' Complaint was filed on January 12, 2026. Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Angel Castro was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Defendants.

Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action of Minor A claim by or against a minor may be settled through compromise only with the approval of the court. A petition for approval must be presented to the court by the minor's guardian. CCP Sec. 372; Probate Code Secs. 2500-2507; 3413-3605. The court should consider the following factors: the circumstances of the accident, particularly the facts bearing on the payor's liability and the minor's damages; the amount of the proposed settlement; the method of payment; the nature of the injury and the minor's current medical status (the petition should include a recent medical report); and the amount of attorney's fees being requested.

Before the hearing, the court should make a preliminary determination of whether the proposed settlement and the method of payment appear reasonable in relation to the potential liability and the nature and extent of injuries. It is especially important to determine whether the minor's condition is permanent, and whether it is stable or likely to worsen. The court should also make a preliminary determination as to whether the costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees appear reasonable.

The Court has reviewed the petition for compromise of pending action. The Court determines that the petition is reasonable as to the settlement amount. The Court finds that the settlement is in the best interest of the minor. The Court finds that the costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees are reasonable. The proposed petition for compromise of the pending action and the proposed disposition of the proceeds of the settlement funds are hereby approved. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action of Minor is granted. Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: 26TRCV02124 Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 Dept: M LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT - SOUTHWEST DISTRICT Honorable Amy N. Carter Tuesday, September 8, 2026 Department M Calendar No. PROCEEDINGS