Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV35202, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35202    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Daniel Teal (“Daniel”) and Donzel Teal (“Donzel”) filed this action against Defendants Jeremy Galdamez and Walter Galdamez (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Daniel and Donzel are minors purportedly appearing through their guardian ad litem, Danielle Woods (“Petitioner”).  On December 29, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant petition to approve compromise of pending action pertaining to Donzel. 

Daniel and Donzel were passengers in a vehicle being driven by Jeremy Galdamez when he lost control and hit a curb, causing the airbags to deploy.  Donzel sustained the following injuries: “soft tissue injuries, including but not limited to neck and back pain. He also hit his head on the back of the car seat in front of him as he was a passenger in the backseat. This impact caused him headaches and issued [sic] with his vision.”  (Petitioner ¶ 7.)  Donzel has now recovered completely from his injuries. 

Donzel has agreed to settle all claims with Defendants for the total amount of $13,400.00.  If the settlement is approved, $3,700.41 will be used for medical expenses and $3,238.21 will be used for attorney fees.  Petitioner provides there is no guardianship of the estate of Donzel, but Petitioner does not indicate how the net balance of $6,461.38 is to be disbursed.  (Id., supra, ¶ 19.)

The petition is denied for the following reasons: 

·       Petitioner has not been appointed as guardian ad litem for Donzel.  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.  Thus, Petitioner must be appointed as guardian ad litem prior to filing a new petition to approve compromise.

·       Petitioner did not file any of the required Attachments with the instant petition (see e.g., Attachment 14a and 18a).

·       Petitioner must provide a proposed method for the net balance of Donzel’s settlement proceeds to be disbursed (see e.g., petition ¶ 19b(2) to have proceeds deposited into blocked account). 

·       Daniel remains a plaintiff in this action, but no information is provided regarding the status of Daniel’s claims against Defendants.  Petitioner must state what the status of Daniel’s claims against Defendants are.  If Daniel’s claims have also been settled, this information must be provided at ¶ 12.  Similarly, if Plaintiffs’ counsel expects to receive attorney fees for representing Daniel, the attorney fees must be disclosed at ¶ 19.

·       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.

Pursuant to CRC 7.952, Donzel and Petitioner must appear at the hearing on this matter unless the Court finds good cause to excuse their appearance.  Donzel herein is only 17 years old, and thus, Donzel will be required to appear at the hearing on a new petition along with Petitioner.  Accordingly, Donzel and Petitioner will be required to appear in connection with a new petition, after Petitioner is appointed as guardian ad litem for Claimant, that fixes the above defects. 

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 2^nd day of February 2023