Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV08734, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08734    Hearing Date: July 3, 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 filed on May 29, 2024 by Petitioner Lucia Flores (Petitioner) on behalf of Claimant Setareh Flores, age 7. The Court denies the petition without prejudice for the following reasons:

Petitioner asserts that on December 28, 2020, Claimant suffered a fractured left elbow after falling in her unit on a hole in the carpet. Petitioner has produced medical records that at a January 29, 2021 check-up, the fracture was reduced and the long-arm cast was discontinued. Claimant was told she could continue full activities after four weeks. (Attach. 8, Petition, pdf. 21.) Petitioner also submits a declaration as Claimant’s mother, under penalty of perjury, that Claimant’s injuries have all resolved. This is sufficient to confirm Claimant’s current condition.

Petitioner must include amounts in 10b next to each Defendant; together they must equal $75,000.

Item 11b(5) must only include settlements for people other than Claimant. Omit Claimant’s settlement in 11b(5) and only keep Petitioner’s settlement.

Petitioner must include attachment 11b(6) describing the reasons for apportionment between Petitioner and Claimant.

The entry in item 12a(3) contradicts the other values in 12a. The value in 12a(3) must be the amount of reductions, and not the value after reductions are applied.

Petitioner requests $18,750 in attorney fees which represents 25% of the gross settlement. The Court finds this to be reasonable.

In the proposed order (MC-351), item 8a(2) shows that the Medi-Cal lien was already paid by Petitioner or Petitioner’s attorney. However, this is not reflected in the petition. (See Petition, item 14a.) Therefore, to the extent the lien has not been paid, Petitioner must complete item 8a(3) with the relevant information for the lien to be paid to the Department of Health Care Services.

Accordingly, the Court denies the petition without prejudice.

Petitioner shall give notice and file a proof of service of such.