Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV01181, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01181    Hearing Date: February 9, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

MARIANO PACLEB, ET AL.,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

JOHANA MARKS, ET AL.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 21STCV01181

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF MINOR

 

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 9, 2023

 

Plaintiffs Mariano Pacleb (“Petitioner”), Byanka Delgadillo (“Delgadillo”), and Benicio Pacleb (“Claimant”), a minor, filed this action against Defendant Johana Marks (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  

 

On December 19, 2022, Petitioner filed a petition for approval of compromise of claim pertaining to Claimant.  Claimant suffered “acute pain” as a result of the accident.  (Petition ¶ 6.)  Claimant has recovered completely the effects of the injuries. 

 

Plaintiffs have agreed to settle their claims with Defendant for the total amount of $30,000.00, with $9,000 being apportioned to Petitioner, $9,000 to Delgadillo, and $12,000 to Claimant.  Pertaining to Claimant, if the settlement is approved, $1,076.43 will be used for medical expenses.  The net balance of $10,923.57 will be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity.

 

The petition filed on December 19, 2022, was denied without prejudice for the following reasons: 

·       Petitioner has not been appointed as guardian ad litem for Claimant.  Appointment as a guardian ad litem is a prerequisite to petitioning the Court for the requested relief.  The Court cannot grant the petition until a guardian ad litem is appointed.

·       At 17, Petitioner indicates that Counsel has not and does not expect to receive attorney fees in connection with this action.  It is unclear whether Counsel is receiving any attorney fees from Petitioner’s or Delgadillo’s settlement amounts.  To the extent that Counsel is receiving attorney fees from the other settlement amounts, they must be disclosed at ¶ 17.  Alternatively, Counsel should clarify that Petitioner and Delgadillo are not paying any fees. 

 

(Min. Order, Jan. 11, 2023.) 

 

            After the petition was denied, Petitioner filed a “Notice of Continued Hearing” providing that Petitioner was moving for an order approving minor’s compromise on February 9, 2023.  Plaintiffs’ counsel further filed a declaration explaining that no attorney fees were being paid from any of Plaintiffs’ settlement amounts.  Further, on February 3, 2023, Petitioner was appointed as guardian ad litem for Claimant.  Thus, it appears that Petitioner has attempted to address the defects noted with Petitioner’s prior petition.

 

            However, the issue is that since Petitioner’s previous petition was denied on January 11, 2023, Petitioner has not filed a new petition.  Consequently, there is currently no pending petition before the Court for it to rule on.  Additionally, the Court cannot locate a proposed order on Judicial Council form MC-351, with all required information, concerning a petition for Claimant.  The Court cannot approve the minor’s compromise without a new petition and proposed order being filed.   

 

Therefore, Petitioner is ordered to file a new petition for approval of compromise and a proposed order on form MC-351. 

 

Petitioner is ordered to give notice. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

 

Dated this 9th day of February 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court