Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV35223, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35223    Hearing Date: August 24, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Justyne R. Leon (“Claimant”), a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Ambria Marlene Pinela (“Petitioner”), filed this action against Defendant Parvaz Farmad Mizrahi, DDS, MPH (“Defendant”) for medical malpractice and negligent infliction of emotional distress.  Claimant presented herself to Defendant for examination for removal of a certain tooth, but Defendant removed the wrong tooth during surgery.  Claimant suffered the loss of her tooth and now has a space in between her teeth she cannot fix until she is of proper age.  Claimant has not recovered completely from the injuries, as she is still missing the tooth. 

Plaintiff, by and through her guardian ad litem and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims with Defendant for the total amount of $47,000.00.  If the settlement is approved, $11,750.00 will be used for attorney fees, and $1,814.60 will be used for costs.  Petitioner provides there is a guardianship of the estate of the minor and proposes the net balance of $33,435.40 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, Petitioner marked item 18a(3) indicating that there is a guardianship of the estate of the minor, Claimant, but Petitioner proposes the proceeds of the settlement not become part of the estate.  It would appear that Petitioner may have marked items 18a and 18a(3) in error, as Petitioner did not submit proof of a guardianship of estate.  Further, Petitioner provides the Case No. of this action in item 18a, but this matter does not concern a guardianship of the estate of a minor.  If there is no guardianship of estate for Claimant, Petitioner should mark item 18b(2) to the extent Petitioner is proposing to deposit the funds into a blocked account.  Petitioner is ordered to file an amended petition with any such error corrected.

Pursuant to CRC 7.952, Petitioner and Claimant 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.  Petitioner only will be required to appear.  Therefore, if a sufficient amended petition is filed, 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 24^th day of August 2022