Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV02482, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV02482    Hearing Date: August 20, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

EXPEDITED PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE

Petition filed: 8/5/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Guillermo Zalazar, Sr. (“Petitioner”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Petitioner seeks the Court’s approval of the settlement that his minor son, Plaintiff and claimant, Guillermo Zalazar, Jr., reached with Defendant Byron Ray Sutltz.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANT.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from alleged personal injury and damages sustained by Plaintiff as the result of Defendant’s vehicle allegedly making an unsafe turn, colliding with Plaintiff who was riding his skateboard, on or about January 16, 2023.

On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff Guillermo Zalazar, Jr., a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”), Guillermo Zalazar, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) filed their Complaint against Defendant Byron Ray Stultz (“Stultz” or “Defendant”), and Does 1 to 50, alleging: (1) Motor Vehicle Liability, and (2) General Negligence.

On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a Request for Dismissal, dismissing with prejudice Defendants Hixons and the Cross-Complaint. The request was subsequently entered by the Clerk on the same day.

On July 15, 2024, Petitioner Guillermo Zalazar, Sr. filed an Expedited Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise. Subsequently, on July 26, 2024, the Court set the hearing for the Petition. (2024/7/26 Minute Order.)

On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the amended Expedited Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise (the “Petition”).

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

“[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors, [is] a role to assure that whatever is done is in the minor’s best interests…[I]ts¿primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor’s injuries, care and treatment.” (Goldberg v. Sup. Ct.¿(1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.)¿ 

¿ 

A petition for court approval of a compromise or covenant not to sue under¿Code of Civil Procedure¿section¿372 must comply with California Rules of Court, rules¿7.950, 7.951, and 7.952. The petition must be verified by the petitioner and contain a full disclosure of all information that has “any bearing upon the reasonableness” of the compromise or the covenant.¿(Cal. Rules of

Court, rule¿7.950.)¿The person compromising the claim on behalf of the minor or person who lacks capacity, and the represented person, must attend the hearing on compromise of the claim unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance.¿(Cal. Rules of Court, rule¿7.952.)¿ 

¿ 

An order for deposit of funds of a minor or person lacking decision making capacity and a petition for the withdrawal of such funds must comply with¿California Rules of Court, rules¿7.953 and 7.954.¿(Cal. Rules of Court¿3.1384; see¿also¿Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rules 4.115-4.118.)¿ 

¿ 

Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 7.950, a petitioner may fully complete form MC-350EX to expedite their petition for approval of a minor’s compromise where:¿(1) The petitioner is represented by an attorney authorized to practice in the courts of this state; (2) The claim is not for damages for the wrongful death of a person; (3) No portion of the net proceeds of the compromise, settlement, or judgment in favor of the minor or disabled claimant is to be placed in a trust; (4) There are no unresolved disputes concerning liens to be satisfied from the proceeds of the compromise, settlement, or judgment; (5) The petitioner's attorney did not become involved in the matter at the direct or indirect request of a person against whom the claim is asserted or an insurance carrier for that person; (6) The petitioner's attorney is neither employed by nor associated with a defendant or insurance carrier in connection with the petition;¿¿(7) If an action has been filed on the claim: (A) All defendants that have appeared in the action are participating in the compromise; or (B) The court has finally determined that the settling parties entered into the settlement in good faith; (8) The judgment for the minor or disabled claimant (exclusive of interest and costs) or the total amount payable to the minor or disabled claimant and all other parties under the proposed compromise or settlement is $50,000 or less or, if greater: (A) The total amount payable to the minor or disabled claimant represents payment of the individual-person policy limits of all liability insurance policies covering all proposed contributing parties; and (B) All proposed contributing parties would be substantially unable to discharge an adverse judgment on the minor's or disabled person's claim from assets other than the proceeds of their liability insurance policies; and (9) The court does not otherwise order.¿(California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5(a).)¿ 

¿ 

The court ordinarily must rule on an expedited petition no more than 35 days after it is filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5(b).)¿The expedited petition must be determined by the court without a hearing unless a hearing is requested by the petitioner at the time the expedited petition is filed, an objection or other opposition to the petition is filed by an interested party, or a hearing is scheduled by the court¿on its own motion or where it decided not to grant an expedited petition in full as requested. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5(c).)¿ 

A.    Expedited Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise

Here, Petitioner sets out the following information in the Petition.

Minor – Guillermo Zalazar, Jr., 14 years old

Parent/GAL – Guillermo Zalazar, Sr.

Defendant – Byran Ray Stultz

Settlement:                  $15,000.00

Attorney’s Fees:          $3,750.00

Litigation Costs:         $804.22

Medical Bills:              $6,979.41

TOTAL TO BE PAID TO MINOR: $3,466.37

General Requirements

·         Petition on Form MC-350EX?                 YES 

·         Proposed Order on Form MC-351?          YES 

·         Proof of service on other parties?             YES  

Type of Injury, Medical Expenses

Minor Claimant Guillermo Zalazar, Jr. sustained “closed head injury, face abrasions, low back pain, left leg pain, left knee, left ankle, right wrist pain.” (MC-350EX, ¶ 7.) “The claimant received ... chiropractic, Pain Management and Imaging.” (Id. ¶ 8.)

·         Medical records documenting injuries and treatment?  Yes.  (MC-350EX, Attach. “9.”) 

·         Negotiated reduction in medical expenses?  Yes.  (MC-350EX, ¶ 13a, 13f(2).)

·         Injuries completely healed?  Yes, Claimant “has recovered completely from the effects of the injuries described in item 7, and there are no permanent injuries.”  (MC-350EX, ¶ 9(a).)  

Handling of Funds

“There is no guardianship of the estate of the minor ... Petitioner requests that the balance of  ... $3,466,37 be paid or delivered to a parent of the minor on the terms and under the conditions specified in Probate Code section 3401-3402, without bond.” (MC-350EX, ¶ 19(b).)

Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs 

·         Attorneys’ fees requested?  Yes.  (MC-350EX, ¶ 14; Zeesman Decl. ¶ 5.) 

·         If yes, attorney declaration including factors under CRC 7.955(b)?  Yes.  (MC-350EX, ¶ 14;  Zeesman Decl. ¶¶ 4-10.) 

·         Copy of retainer agreement? No. 

·         Litigation costs requested?  Yes. 

·         Itemized?  N/A 

Previously, the Court found the following deficiencies:

-          No proof of service was filed demonstrating that Defendant was served with this Petition and proposed order.

-          In paragraph 2 of the Petition, the date of birth for the Minor Claimant does not match the date indicated on multiple medical reports (See Attach. “9.”)

-          A copy of the retainer agreement has not been provided.

Upon reviewing the amended Petition, filed by Petitioner on August 5, 2024, the Court finds that Petitioner has satisfactorily addressed these deficiencies, leading to the Court’s decision to GRANT the Petition.

CONCLUSION

The Expedited Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise, filed on behalf of minor Claimant Guillermo Zalazar, Jr., is GRANTED.