Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case 20STCV48296 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 20STCV48296, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48296 Hearing Date: March 1, 2023 Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: February 6, 2023

Case Name: Tab J. Rhodes, et al. v. Fang Gu, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV48296

Motion: 2x Petitions to Approve Compromise of Pending Action on Behalf of Minors Bryan K. Eichert Jr. and Kaitlyn C. Aubuchon

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Tab J. Rhodes; Lisa C. Eichert-Rhodes; Bryan K. Eichert; Natalie R. Eichert; Bryan K. Eichert, II; Zachary J. Rhodes; Kaitlyn C. Aubuchon; Kamila C. Aubuchon; Steven J. Aubuchon

Opposing Party: None

Tentative Ruling: The petitions to approve compromise of pending action on behalf of minors is continued to a later date.

The Court previously continued the hearing for Plaintiffs to address certain deficiencies. There still do not appear to be any court orders appointing either Bryan Eichert or Kaitlyn C. Aubuchon as the guardian ad litem for the minors. Code of Civil Procedure section 372, subdivision (a) provides that a minor must appear in litigation by a guardian or conservator of her estate, or a Guardian Ad Litem appointed by the court.

In addition, the petitions still contain the following errors:

Petitioners have not explained the reasons for apportionment of the settlement payments between Claimant and other plaintiffs in Attachment 12, as required by item 12(b)(6).

Item 18(a)(2) requires attachment of a copy of the agreement for services between counsel and the petitioner, which was not provided.
Petitioners incorrectly check Item 19(a)(1) and (a)(2) – this case is not a guardianship or conservatorship case. (Petitioners had previously checked item 19(b)(5) for disposition of the settlement funds.)

In addition, depending on the kind of trust that Petitioners intend to create, details of the trust may be subject to review by the Probate Department. Counsel is instructed to review Local Rule 4.115(b) and its potential applicability.

Accordingly, the petitions to approve minor’s compromise are denied. The Court will reset the date at the hearing for counsel to correct the above defects.