Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV25400, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV25400    Hearing Date: October 3, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Patrick Charles Castro (“Petitioner”), Valeri Jeri McKiernan Castro (“Valeri”), Madison Castro (“Madison”), and Payton Castro (“Payton”), a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Patrick Charles Castro, filed this action against Defendant Ernst Richard Ginkel (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

On September 8, 2022, Petitioner Patrick Charles Castro (“Petitioner”) filed the instant petitions to approve compromise of pending action concerning plaintiffs Madison and Payton.  When this action was filed, Madison was a minor and required the appointment of a guardian ad litem.  However, pursuant to the petition, and to the relevant application and order for appointment of guardian ad litem, Madison is now 18 years old.  A guardianship automatically terminates when the subject of the guardianship reaches the age of majority.  (Prob. Code § 1600; see also Guardianship of L.V. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 481, 493 fn. 1.)  Thus, because Madison is no longer a minor, there is no reason to rule on the petition to approve minor’s compromise.  Notably, a ruling granting a petition to approve a compromise is not tantamount to, for example, a ruling enforcing a settlement or finding a settlement to be in good faith.  Each of these requests have statutory authority, and a noticed motion must be filed concerning any such request.

Therefore, the petition as to Madison is taken off calendar as moot in light of Madison now being over 18 years old.  The Court will address the petition concerning minor Payton only. 

Payton was a passenger in plaintiffs’ vehicle when it was involved in a collision with Defendant’s vehicle.  Payton suffered minor soft tissue injuries and has now recovered completely from the effects of the injuries. 

Plaintiffs agreed to settle all claims with Defendant for the total amount of $550,000.00, with $544,000 being apportioned to Petitioner, $1,000 to Madison, $4,000 to Valeri, and $1,000 to Payton.  Pertaining to Payton, if the settlement is approved, $250 will be used for medical expenses and $343.68 will be used for attorney fees.  Petitioner proposes to have the net balance of $406.32 paid directly him, without bond. 

The petition is denied without prejudice for the following reasons:

·       Attachment 12 pertaining to the apportionment of the settlement for each plaintiff provides that Petitioner was severely and permanently injured, but it does not contain sufficient information regarding each plaintiffs’ special damages.  The Court cannot approve a $550,000.00 settlement apportioning $1,000 to Payton without specific information concerning each plaintiffs’ special damages. 

·       Petitioner requests that approximately 34.37% of Payton’s settlement amount be used for attorney fees.  The Court is not satisfied the efforts in this case justify such a high fee.  The Court asks counsel to reduce the fee in connection with an amended petition.  The court does not typically award attorney fees in excess of 25% in cases involving minors absent extraordinary efforts on the part of counsel. 

Pursuant to CRC 7.952, Payton and Petitioner must appear at the hearing on this matter unless the Court finds good cause to excuse their appearance.  Payton herein is 14 years old, and thus, the Court will require Payton to appear along with Petition at the hearing on an amended petition.  They are encouraged to appear remotely at the hearing on an amended petition.  The Court wishes to hear from the Petitioner how Petitioner plans to use the funds in order to determine whether this is an appropriate arrangement. 

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 other actions.

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 3^rd day of October 2022