Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV16991, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16991    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Nazaria Flores (“Petitioner”) and Hernan Marin (“Claimant”), a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Petitioner, filed this action against Defendants Franklin Elimeleth Serpas, Jose Pedro Bonilla, and PB Trucking, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Claimant suffered neck, ankle pain, and soreness as a result of the accident.  Claimant has now recovered completely from the effects of the injuries.   

Plaintiffs have agreed to settle all claims with Defendants for the total amount of $130,000.00, with $5,000 being apportioned to Claimant, and $125,000 being apportioned to Petitioner.  Pertaining to Claimant, if the settlement is approved, $500 will be used for medical expenses and $1,250.00 for attorney fees.  The net balance of $3,250.00 will be deposited into a blocked account. 

The Court has reviewed the settlement and finds it fair and reasonable.  The Court also finds the attorney fees fair and reasonable, in that they amount to 25% of the minor’s settlement.  

However, at item 18, Petitioner indicates that Plaintiffs’ counsel is not representing any other party in this matter and does not expect to receive any attorney fees other than those requested in the petition.  This appears to be a mistake as Petitioner and Claimant are represented by the same counsel.  To the extent that Plaintiffs’ counsel is receiving attorney fees from Petitioner’s settlement, they must be disclosed at ¶ 18.  Additionally, Petitioner filed the instant petition on an outdated version of Judicial Council Form MC-350, Rev. January 1, 2011.  The court asks Counsel who assisted in preparing the petition to use the updated version of Judicial Council Form MC-350, Rev. January 1, 2021, in the future in connection with this and other actions.

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 14 years old, and so the Court will require Claimant and Petitioner to appear at the hearing on an amended petition; they are encouraged to appear remotely.  Therefore, if a sufficient amended petition is filed and a new hearing scheduled in connection with that petition, Claimant and Petitioner will be expected to appear at the hearing on the amended 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 25^th day of August 2022