Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 19STCV20094, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV20094    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court has reviewed the Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action of a Minor, David Meza, age 12, filed December 15, 2023. The Court does not approve and DENIES the petition based on the following reasons:

The Court denied a previous petition, filed August 25, 2023, for failing to attach medical records regarding claimant’s injuries in item 6 and records of treatment in items 7 and 12. (Min. Order, 9/12/23.) In that petition, Petitioner stated in item 7 that Claimant received treatment at St. Francis Medical Center. In an amended petition filed September 27, 2023, Petitioner stated in item 6 that Claimant “[s]ustained bruises to his legs and knees, no treatment heal on it’s own.” 

In the instant petition, Petitioner states in item 6 that “Plaintiff, a minor, walking on crosswalk, was injured from the car impact accident.”

Petitioner filed a declaration on February 22, 2022, declaring under penalty of perjury that she has personal firsthand knowledge that Claimant is fully recovered from his injuries. The Court finds this is sufficient evidence of Claimant’s current condition.

However, item 10 is again filled out improperly. Item 10a must contain the gross settlement offered to Claimant. According to 10c, this value is $8,000 and must be written in 10a (not $18,500, which is the total amount of settlement to all plaintiffs). Accordingly, 10b should only include “Violet Mary Campos $8,000.”

Again, item 11b(1) should not include the amount offered to Claimant, but to all other plaintiffs or claimants. Similarly, item 11b(5) should not include Claimant’s name or amount. Therefore, the amount in 11b(1) should be $10,500. Also, Petitioner did not include attachment 11b(6) to explain the reasons for the apportionment of the settlement between Claimant and each plaintiff. (Min. Order, 11/2/23.)

Petitioner checked item 14a, and therefore should not fill out any values under 14b.

Also, in the Order (MC-351), Petitioner should not mark 8a(4). This item refers to other disbursements from Claimant’s settlement, and not disbursements from other settlements in this case.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.