Judge Audra Mori, Case BC647038 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Audra Mori, Case: BC647038, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC647038 Hearing Date: July 25, 2022 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MARIO MOLINA-GUZMAN,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MICHAEL WILLIAM RICHTER, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

CASE NO: BC647038

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING PETITIONER’S PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

July 25, 2022

Plaintiff, Mario Molina-Guzman (“Plaintiff”), by and though his guardian ad litem, Anahi Molina Talarico (“Petitioner”), filed this action against Defendants, Michael William Richter and City of Artesia for negligence and dangerous condition of public property for damages relating to a vehicle vs. pedestrian accident in an unmarked crosswalk. Plaintiff suffered injuries to his head, brain, lungs, spleen, liver, tibia, fibula and ribs. Plaintiff has not recovered completely from his injuries and continues to suffer from the effects of the traumatic brain injury he suffered.

Plaintiff, by and though his guardian ad litem and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims with Defendants for the total amount of $100,000.00. If the settlement is approved, $17,700.00 will be used for medical expenses, $33,000.00 for attorney’s fees, and $11,801.51 for costs. Petitioner proposes to have the net balance of $37,498.49 deposited into a blocked account.[1]

The court has reviewed the settlement and finds it fair and reasonable. Furthermore, the court has reviewed Counsel’s declaration and is satisfied sufficient efforts were expended to justify the 33% attorney’s fees request.

Pursuant to CRC 7.952, unless appearance is excused, Plaintiff and Petitioner must appear and testify to the satisfaction of the court before the court grants the petition. The court finds Plaintiff’s condition is such that the need for his personal appearance is excused. Petitioner only is required to appear; Petitioner is encouraged to appear remotely. If the court is satisfied with Petitioner’s testimony, the court will grant the 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 July 2022

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] A petition for approval of compromise of claim for Plaintiff, which was filed by Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem, Petitioner, was last heard on March 2, 2022. In connection with the previous petition, Petitioner proposed to transfer the settlement proceeds to the trustee of a special needs trust. The proposed trust was reviewed by the court and multiple issues were noted concerning the proposed special needs trust. (Min. Order March 2, 2022.) The petition was denied. (Ibid.) In connection with the instant petition, Petitioner is no longer requesting to have the net balance of the settlement transferred to the trustee of a special needs trust.