Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 24STCV16236, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 24STCV16236, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV16236 Hearing Date: September 13, 2024 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Petition of Petitioner Melanie D. De Mattia for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceedings of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability as to minor Claimant America Gutierrez.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff America Gutierrez, a minor who filed this case through her guardian ad litem, was crossing the street on August 19, 2023, when she was struck by a motor vehicle. She suffered several pelvic fractures in addition to bruising of her right leg and hip. She has not entirely recovered from her injuries but has resumed her normal activities.

LEGAL STANDARD

Courts must decide whether to approve a compromise by determining if petitioners, such as guardians, are acting in the best interests of minors. E.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 372, subdiv. (a); Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1603-1607. “[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors, [is] a role to assure that whatever is done is in the minor’s best interests…. [I]ts primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor’s injuries, care and treatment.” Goldberg v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382. Judicial discretion in approving petitions for minors’ compromises, and ordering distributions, and local court policies, must be applied in the best interests of minors, in a case-by-case method, tailored to the circumstances. Christensen v. Superior Court (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 139, 142-144.

A petition for court approval of a compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court rules 7.950, 7.951, and 7.952. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1384(a). Some of the Probate Code and the Code of Civil Procedure apply to compromises as to minors’ claims. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950. In large part, the Local Rules incorporate by reference the California Rules of Court and statutory provisions. See Super. Ct. LA County, Local Rules, rule 4.115 et seq.

A payment of attorneys’ fees on the minor’s behalf must be approved as being reasonable by the court. Niles v. City of San Rafael (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 230, 244. “The trial court itself must develop and resolve any counterarguments on behalf of the minor, lest the attorney receive an excessive award of fees.” Gonzalez v. Chen (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 881, 887.

ANALYSIS

In advocating settlement approvals, Petitioner (the guardian ad litem) represents that she made a careful and diligent inquiry and investigation into the facts and circumstances, the responsibility, and the claimants’ injuries.

Here, the Court finds that Petitioner is acting in the minor’s best interests in proposing to obtain approval for the settlement and minor’s compromise. The Court finds that the proposed settlement amount of $20,000.00 is reasonable considering the Plaintiff’s injuries and expected recovery.

If the settlement is approved, $5,500 will be used for Plaintiff’s medical expenses.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s attorney seeks $5,000 in attorney’s fees, reflecting 25 percent of the recovery under a written attorney-client contingency fee agreement. Plaintiff’s attorney affirms that 25 percent of the gross settlement is his normal rate for minors in personal injury cases. Garber Decl., ¶3. Plaintiff’s attorney further affirms that he bore the financial risk in this case and advanced all litigation costs. Id., ¶3. Based on counsel’s declaration, the requested fees are reasonable.

Likewise, expenses advanced by Plaintiff’s attorney, consisting of a $435 filing fee and $275 for an asset search on Defendant, are reasonable and leave a balance of $8,790.

Petitioner intends to disburse fees as described above and deposit the remaining balance in a blocked account. Petitioners properly included the name, branch, and address of the financial institution where the funds will be deposited as attachment 18b(2). Accordingly, the Petition is granted.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the Petition is granted as prayed. The Court will sign and file the proposed order filed by Petitioner. Petitioner also needs to submit a filled-out Order to Deposit Funds into Blocked Account (MC-355) for the Court to sign.