Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV19719, Date: 2024-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19719    Hearing Date: August 8, 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 July 3, 2024 by Petitioner Henry Utama (Petitioner) on behalf of Claimant Ian Law, age 15. The Court denies the petition without prejudice for the following reasons:

In a future petition, Petitioner must label the attachments according to the numbers referenced in the petition.

Petitioner asserts that Claimant has suffered the following permanent injuries from a laceration from a park bench: nerve damage to his thigh and anxiety. Petitioner provides no medical records regarding anxiety.

Petitioner must complete item 10c describing the terms of the settlement.

Based on the values in item 12b, Petitioner indicates that $1,470.03 will be reimbursed to private insurance (Rawlings Company) and $710 will be reimbursed to Vimarn Thai Massage. This totals $2,180.03 in medical reimbursements. However, this conflicts with item 12a(4) which only states that $1,470.03 will be reimbursed. Additionally, Petitioner appears to seek reimbursement for $710. Therefore, it is unclear the total amount of medical expenses to be reimbursed, and it is unclear whether the $710 should be reimbursed to Petitioner or Vimarn Thai Massage. Petitioner must amend the values (note: the values in 12b(1-5) should equal the total reimbursement amount sought in 12a(4)).

Petitioner requests $36,774.58 in attorney fees which represents 45.96% of the gross settlement. However, this is over the 40% that Petitioner’s attorney declares he is seeking, and which is stated in the fee agreement. (See Shin Decl. ¶ 14.) The declaration is also insufficient to support the 40% sought.

In item 14, Petitioner requests $710 reimbursement for medical expenses. He must include attachment 14 with proof of payment of these expenses.

Claimant does not need to sign item 21 since he is not an adult with a disability.

Accordingly, the Court denies the petition without prejudice.

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