Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV11490, Date: 2024-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11490    Hearing Date: October 21, 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 September 30, 2024 by Petitioner Maria Reyes Canela-Vela (Petitioner) on behalf of Claimant Maria Alejandra Urista Canela, age 5. The Court denies the petition without prejudice for the following reasons:

On September 18, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ application sealing portions of Claimant’s Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise.  

The medical report in attachment 8 does not show that Claimant is fully recovered. Petitioner must provide further medical records/reports, or other evidence in support of Claimant's recovery.

Petitioner must include attachment 11b3 describing her effect on Claimant’s settlement.

Petitioner must include attachment 11b6 describing reasons for the apportionment between Claimant and the other plaintiffs.

According to item 12a(4), $5,823.63 in reimbursements are sought for medical expenses. At the same time, item 12b(1) claims that $5,823.63 were paid by Petitioner and should be reimbursed to Petitioner. Item 12b(4) shows a $1,203.63 Medi-Cal lien, and item 12b(5) shows a $4,620 medical lien from provider Premier Forensic Psychology. The value in item 12a(4) should equal the values listed in 12(b). Therefore, it is unclear what total amount is sought to be reimbursed from the settlement, and what has already been paid.

Petitioner should include a version of the fee agreement in English.

Additionally, it is unclear whether Petitioner paid any medical expenses. Petitioner has marked 14a and 14b, which are contradictory. Item 14b claims Petitioner paid medical expenses, but no attachment 14 was provided showing proof of these payments. If instead, the medical, attorney, and other expenses will be paid after the proceeds are released, Petitioner should mark item 14a and make no selection in 14b.

It appears counsel is representing other parties other than Claimant. Petitioner must change the response in item 17e and provide attachment 17e.

Petitioner should not complete item 21 since Claimant is not an adult with a disability.

In the proposed order (MC-351), the “other expenses” value should be written in 8a(2). In item 8a(5), the total allowance should be the sum of values in item 8a(1), (2), and (3).

Accordingly, the Court denies the petition without prejudice.

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