Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2022-00027885-CU-PO-NC, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 18, 2024

01/19/2024  10:00:00 AM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00027885-CU-PO-NC DOMINGUEZ VS ESCONDIDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 12/26/2023

This matter is continued to Friday, March 29, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. in Department N-31.

This is a Motion to Have the Court Waive the Rawlings Company's Claim of Lien. It is brought by plaintiff Leilani Mason, by and through her guardian ad litem, Cecilia Dominguez (together, Plaintiff) under the Hospital Lien Act, Civil Code §§ 3045.1-3045.6, and Health and Safety Code § 1250.

Plaintiff previously submitted a Petition for Approval of Minor's Compromise. However, defendant Escondido Union High School District (the School) objected on grounds that Plaintiff had received medical care for the injuries alleged in this lawsuit and the provider of that medical care had perfected a lien against any payout or proceeds Plaintiff might obtain via this lawsuit. Under Civil Code § 3045.1, et seq., the School had some exposure to said lien if it only paid the funds at issue to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff took the position that the lien in question had no validity and did not need to be identified on the Petition for Approval of Minor's Compromise because the collections company, known as the Rawlings Company (Rawlings), was not the actual provider of the medical services and thus, according to Plaintiff, could not take advantage of the statutes protecting liens by medical providers. According to Plaintiff, that statutory right only belonged to the actual medical provider – Kaiser Hospital (Kaiser).

To resolve the issue, the School referenced the option of bringing a motion to clear up the lien issue and see whether or not Rawlings even intended to collect against the School – noting that the settlement in this question is for a relatively small amount of $3,226.41, which might be characterized as 'nuisance value' given the claim of over $41,988.29 in medical expenses and not to say anything of any additional damages that might have resulted from emotional distress to the minor at issue. Plaintiff, reluctantly, agreed to file such a motion, and that motion is now on-calendar in this Court.

The statutory grounds for the motion are not entirely clear, as the statute itself does not prescribe a motion process for waiving a lien, and as the moving papers do not cite specific law regarding the procedure for having a lien waived. That, however, is not the most critical issue at this juncture. The critical issue at this juncture is that the entire principle upon which the motion rests is that the Court can waive Rawlings' lien if Rawlings fails to appear and object. In order for that premise to be palatable and comply with due process, Rawlings must be properly noticed.

Legally, proper notice of a motion requires 16 court days. As the instant motion was set to be heard on January 19, 2024, 16 court days prior to that hearing date fell on December 26, 2023 (as 'court' days exclude weekends and holidays like the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday and the New Year's Day Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3069684 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DOMINGUEZ VS ESCONDIDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT  37-2022-00027885-CU-PO-NC Holiday). (Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b).) Plaintiff served the instant motion on December 26, 2023.

However, Plaintiff served notice of the motion by mail. When documents are served by mail, 5 additional calendar days are required for service within the State of California and 10 additional calendar days are required for service to or from an address outside of the State of California. (Code of Civil Procedure § 1013(a).) Rawlings was served at an address in the State of Kentucky, so (without accounting for what happens when a deadline falls on a weekend) the deadline to mail the notice fell on Saturday, December 16, 2023. As such, the motion has not been timely noticed.

Additionally, Rawlings is a third-party to this action. As such, it does not have an address of record on file, such that service by mail may not be proper at all – at least not without an acknowledgement of some sort from Rawlings. In an effort to resolve this procedural issue, the Court, on its own motion and pursuant to Evidence Code § 451, et seq., takes judicial notice of the publicly-available records available through the California Secretary of State for The Rawlings Company LLC. According to those records, Rawlings is an out of state limited liability company that uses the following addresses: Principal Address and Mailing Address 1 Eden Parkway LaGrange, KY 40031 Agent 1505 Corporation C T Corporation System CA Registered Corporate Agent Authorized Employee(s) Amanda Garcia Gabriela Sanchez Daisy Montenegro Beatrice Casarez-Barrientez Jessie Gastelum John Montijo Diana Ruiz Sarai Marin Emanuel Jacobo Gladys Aguilera Vivian Imperial Carlos Paz Alberto Damonte Peter Cayetano Elsa Montanez Xenia Perez Yesenia Carpenter Jaqueline Mejia 330 N Brand Blvd.

Glendale, CA None of these addresses match the address served by Plaintiff. Moreover, the service made on Rawlings, a non-party, was not personal service, and there has been no acknowledgment of it. Given that the entire principle upon which the motion rests – that Rawlings will not object to the settlement – fair notice is critical to the granting of the motion.

The Court is mindful of that fact that, in the record on this case, there is a letter from Rawlings that uses the address that Plaintiff served. (See ROA 108, PDF p. 5.) That letter evidence was procured by the School's counsel, and is produced in conjunction with a declaration by the School's counsel that the representatives of Rawlings have tried to reach out to Plaintiff's counsel and not had their phone calls returned.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3069684 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DOMINGUEZ VS ESCONDIDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT  37-2022-00027885-CU-PO-NC As it stands, the service of the present motion is inadequate for multiple reasons, as set forth above.

However, rather than deny the motion outright, given that the parties to this case have reached a settlement agreement to resolve the matter, the Court will continue the hearing to provide time for the moving party to properly notice the motion. To that end, and given the significant risk of removing a third party's lien rights that this motion poses, rather than merely continuing the motion for Plaintiff to re-serve the motion in a code-compliant manner, the Court will expressly order a heightened method of service, as follows.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve notice of the hearing, as well as the moving papers, on Rawlings using all of the following methods: --personally serve Rawlings by on or before February 23, 2024 --mail service to Rawlings by on or before February 23, 2024 at the following two addresses: (1) Attn: Heather Gray, Subrogation Operations Management, The Rawlings Company, PO Box 2000, La Grange, KY, 40031, and (2) to any of the above named authorized agents for service of process at 330 N Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA.

--e-mail service to Rawlings at HG2@rawlingscompany.com by on or before February 23, 2024 Plaintiff is further ORDERED to file a proof of service establishing that each of these methods of service has been completed by on or before Friday, March 15, 2024.

Finally, the Court is mindful of the fact that the Plaintiff, a minor, reaches the age of majority on or about February 18, 2024. As that event may alleviate the statutory need for a petition for approval of minor's compromise (as distinguished from any contractual obligation to obtain approval on such a petition), compliance with the above court order regarding service is only necessary if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with the instant motion and have it heard on the continued hearing date of March 29, 2024. Should the reaching of the age of majority provide sufficient basis for the parties to modify their settlement agreement and alleviate the need for approval of a petition for approval of minor's compromise, the above service need not be completed and the parties can request that the continued hearing date be taken off-calendar when submitting their updated notice of settlement and/or their dismissal papers.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3069684