Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 20STCV02230 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV02230, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV02230 Hearing Date: September 7, 2022 Dept: 28

Petitioner Benjamin Mata’s Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action on Behalf of Minor

Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff Nathan Decorah, by and through his guardian ad litem, Benjamin Mata (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant RUMAC PARTNERS, DBA McDonald's #15660 (“McDonald’s”) and Alan Ruby (“Ruby”) for premises liability. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Estate of Alan Ruby, Deceased (“Estate”) and Cedar Corp. (“Cedar”).

On May 18, 2020, McDonald’s filed its answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Benjamin Mata (“Cross-Defendant” or “Petitioner”).

On August 22, 2022, Petitioner filed an Order Approving Compromise of Disputer Claim of Plaintiff Nathan Decorah to be heard on September 7, 2022

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Petitioner Benjamin Mata asks the Court to approve the compromise of the pending action on behalf of Plaintiff Nathan Decorah.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner’s application is still insufficient. The SNT instrument is not attached to the order as the approved trust instrument. Other trust issues, such as bond and bindings, are not addressed in any attachment. The Court also notes that notice is actually insufficient—Petitioner provided notice to the LA County Department of Mental Health instead of the required Cal Department of Mental Health.

Based on all of the above, the Court denies the application. Petitioner must file a new petition with attachments for the SNT, a page of orders regarding the SNT issues, and POS for the correct three state agencies, with all relevant documents.

CONCLUSION

The Petition to Approve Compromise of the Pending Action on Behalf of Minor Nathan Decorah is DENIED.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Petitioner is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

This from the Probate dept.:

The SNT instrument is not attached to the order as the approved trust instrument. The rest of the trust issues are not addressed in any attachment (bond, findings, court keeping jurisdiction over the trust, etc.). And I know that the court said in a prior MO that notice is sufficient, but petitioner's counsel is confused - of the three state agencies that must be noticed, petitioner noticed two state agencies and the LA County Dept of Mental Health (instead of the Cal Dept of Mental Health), which is not sufficient. See, eg, the 6/29/22 and 8/19/22 POSs.

All this over a $36k net settlement which goes into an annuity then into a SNT, which is way too much process for that amount. They should just be spending it down now for the benefit of the minor.

If they wish to proceed, they need a new petition (or perhaps the court will let them get away with a new proposed order) with attachments for the SNT, a page of orders re the SNT issues, and POS for the three state agencies that sends the doc including SNT instrument.