Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV25463, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25463    Hearing Date: May 14, 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 April 24, 2024 by Petitioner iomara Palacios (Petitioner) on behalf of Claimant Madigan Amaya, age 16. The Court denies the petition without prejudice for the following reasons:

Petitioner must include attachment 11b(6) stating the reasons for the apportionment between the other plaintiffs.

The amount in 12a(3) must be the reduction amount, and not the net amount after reduction. Based on the other values, it appears this amount should be $4,870.

In 12b(5), Petitioner must indicate the amount already paid (if any) to each of the three medical providers.

Petitioner requests $6,250 in attorney fees. This amount represents 25% of the gross settlement. The Court finds this amount to be reasonable.

It appears counsel is representing other parties in this action. The response in 17e must be changed and the applicable attachment provided.

In the proposed order (MC-351), Petitioner must include the gross amount in item 6. Item 8a(2) indicates that Petitioner’s attorney will be reimbursed for medical expenses. However, this conflicts with item 12b(5) in the petition which shows that there are liens to three providers. Petitioner did not provide proof that she or her attorney paid for the medical expenses. If not, then the providers should be paid directly by completing item 8a(3) in the proposed order.

Also in the proposed order, Petitioner must complete item 9a.

Accordingly, the Court denies the petition without prejudice.

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