Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV33496, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33496    Hearing Date: October 24, 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 for approval of compromise for a person with a disability filed on September 16, 2024 by Petitioner Enma Amarilis Tereth (Petitioner) on behalf of Claimant Andrew Flores, age 22. The Court denies the petition without prejudice for the following reasons:

As an initial matter, the Court observes that no guardian ad litem (“GAL”) has been appointed. Additionally, while Petitioner represents in item 1 that she is a conservator for Claimant, no order or further proof of a conservatorship has been attached to the petition. Moreover, item 2f states there is no conservator of the estate. Petitioner must attach an order showing she has authority to compromise on Claimant’s behalf, or seek to be appointed GAL, before the Court will approve the petition. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 372, subd. (a)(3).)

For future reference, the Court notes the following defects in the petition.

Petitioner requests $24,000 in attorney fees which represents 40% of the gross settlement. 

The attorney declaration in attachment 13a does not sufficiently support the amount requested. Counsel should also provide an English copy of the fee agreement in attachment 17a. 

Claimant has signed item 21, but also did not mark 2e. These are contradictory. Petitioner must review these selections.

In attachment 18b(9), Petitioner proposes to deposit the net settlement funds “in the Lawyer’s Trust Account of Petitioner's counsel Alliance For Students Rights, pending the creation, court approval, and execution of a spend-down plan.”

However, Petitioner must explain further why the other methods of disposition under item 18b are insufficient to meet Claimant’s needs.

For example, the Court notes that historically, a person receiving Medi-Cal or SSI benefits could have only up to $2,000 in non-exempt assets, and any additional non-exempt assets over $2,000 would cause the loss of benefits eligibility under the relevant federal and state law.  On January 1, 2024, the Medi-Cal asset qualification limit was eliminated and there is no longer a means test for Medi-Cal. (The asset qualification for other benefits, like SSI, did not change.) To the extent that the plan proposed by counsel is the best option to meet Claimant’s needs, the plan must be submitted with the amended petition.

Accordingly, the Court denies the petition without prejudice.

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