Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV33122, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV33122    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Penelope Barajas (“Claimant”), a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Cecelia Barajas (“Petitioner”) filed this action against Defendants Audry Beauty Distributors, Inc. and DS Services of America, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries Claimant sustained from a hot water dispenser on Defendant’s property.  Plaintiffs allege Claimant was scalded by chemical burns or hot water from the hot water dispenser.  Claimant suffered second degree burns to her face, chest and trunk area, mental and emotional injuries, and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms.  Claimant has not recovered completely from her injuries, as the hyper-pigmentation resulting from the burns on Claimant’s chest area is likely permanent.

Claimant, by and through her guardian ad litem and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims with Defendants for the total amount of $325,000.00.  If the settlement is approved, $8,666.12 will be used for medical expenses, $107,250.00 for attorney fees, and $72,735.09 will be used for costs.  The net balance of $136,348.79 will be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity. 

This is Petitioner’s second petition.  The petition is denied without prejudice for the following reason:

·       In connection with the previous petition for approval of compromise of claim, Petitioner requested 45% be used for attorney’s fees.  California Rule of Court 7.995 permits but does not require attorney fees to be awarded pursuant to an agreement with counsel.  The Court must determine whether the attorney fees are reasonable under all the facts and circumstances presented.  Petitioner now requests 33% of Plaintiff’s settlement be used for attorney fees.  However, the Court is still not satisfied the efforts in this case justify such a high fee.  The explanation given is basically that depositions had to be taken and the case was settled shortly before trial.  The Court asks counsel to explain in greater detail why the fee would be justified pursuant to Rule 7.955(b) or reduce the fee in connection with a new petition to the more reasonable amount of 25%.

Pursuant to CRC 7.952, Claimant and Petitioner must appear at the hearing on this matter unless the Court finds good cause to excuse their appearance.  Claimant herein is only seven years old, and thus, the Court finds Claimant’s age constitutes good cause to excuse her appearance; she will not be required to appear.  Only Petitioner will be required to appear at the hearing on a new petition.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 28^th day of October 2022