Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV14042, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14042    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: 28

Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action on Behalf of Minor Claudia Yang

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



On April 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Claudia Yang (“Caludia”) and Armine Yang (“Armine”) filed this action against Defendants Target Corporation (“Target”), Briggs Medical Service Company (“Briggs”) for products liability – design defect, products liability – negligence and products liability – breach of warranty.

On July 21, 2022, Briggs filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Target, Shenzhen Dongdixin Technology Company LTD (“SDTC”) and Nu-Tek Health (Hong Kong) (“Nu-Tek”) for implied indemnity, comparative contribution, equitable indemnity, negligence and declaratory relief. Briggs later amended the Cross-Complaint to include Cross-Defendant Armine. On August 25, 2022, Target was dismissed, with prejudice, pursuant to Briggs’ request. On August 25, 2022, Armine filed an answer.

On August 22, 2022, Target filed an answer. On August 24, 2022, Target filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant SDTC, Nu-Tek and Armine for implied indemnity, comparative contributions, equitable indemnity, negligence and declaratory relief. On August 29, 2022, Armine filed an answer.

On February 14, 2023, Plaintiffs submitted a Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise to be heard on February 9, 2023.



Petitioner Armine Yang asks the Court to approve the compromise of the pending action on behalf of Plaintiff Claudia Yang.



Petitioner’s application is incorrectly filled out. For Section 13(a), Petitioner notes there are no outstanding medical payments to be paid or reimbursements to be paid from the proceeds. However, in Section 13(b)(4)(c), Petitioner noted that Medi-Cal has agreed to accept reimbursement of approximately $4,000.00. This amount is repeated against in Section 17(b).

Additionally, Petitioner’s provided numbers do not match the totals provided. The gross settlement is $20,000.00. Petitioner states that total fees and expenses equal $10,173.10, but stated that Claimant will only receive $8,173.10 as a net settlement. Approximately $1,700.00 is unaccounted for. This also contradicts the Section 16 net balance, which stated $13,918.00.

Based on the above, the Court denies the petition.



Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action on Behalf of Minor Claudia Yang filed by Petitioner Armine Yang 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.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.