Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV11067, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11067    Hearing Date: April 17, 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 February 29, 2024 by Petitioner Sheryl Tan (Petitioner) on behalf of Claimant Imogen Tan-Ching, age 10. The Court denies the petition without prejudice for the following reasons:

Petitioner asserts Claimant is fully recovered after receiving a consultation for exposure to asbestos. Petitioner must provide a medical report, records, or other evidence in attachment 8, demonstrating that Claimant is fully recovered. 

In attachment 11b(3) and 11b(6), Petitioner states that out of the $67.689.00 settlement to Plaintiffs Peter Ching, Sheryl Tan, and Claimant, Claimant will receive $5,000. Petitioner must explain the reason for the $5,000 apportionment to Claimant in attachment 11b(6).

In item 12a(4), Petitioner states that $0 in medical expenses is sought to be reimbursed. However, this in contradicted by the $112.40 in medical liens shown in 12b(2) and 12b(5). It is also unclear whether Petitioner is seeking reimbursement to a private health insurance or directly to the provider Meritain Health. Additionally, in 12b(5)(b), it is unclear why $112.40 is sought, given the $130 in medical expenses and no indication of a reduction.

Petitioner requests $2,385.52 in attorney fees which represents 47.7% of the gross settlement. The Court finds this amount is unreasonable and not supported by the attachment 13a declaration separately filed on April 10, 2024. Based on item 13b, it appears Petitioner actually seeks $2,000 in attorney fees, which represents 40% of the gross settlement. If this is correct, the Court still finds this amount is not supported by the declaration. Also, the amount of fees and costs stated in the declaration does not match the amount in the petition. In a future petition, Petitioner must only put the value for attorney fees in item 13a and include the remaining expenses ($385.52) in 13b. Also, attachment 13a and the fee agreement must be attached to the petition.  

It appears Petitioner’s counsel is representing other parties in this matter. The response in item 17e must be changed and the applicable attachment must be provided.

In the proposed Order (MC-351), Petitioner must also mark “guardian ad litem” in item 2. The gross amount ($5,000) must be in item 6. The other expenses in item 8a(4), totaling $385.52, must be placed in item 8a(2), instead.

Accordingly, the Court denies the petition without prejudice.

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