Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from allegations that a teacher was abusing a four year old student.  Plaintiff K.D. is an African-American child with speech and language impairment.  (Compl. ¶1.)  Plaintiff claims his teacher, Defendant Roberta Brandt (“Brandt”), emotionally and physically abused him for several weeks until his mother removed him from school for his own safety.  (Id.)   Brandt allegedly screamed at K.D., forced him to lay down on a dirty rug outside of the classroom during naptime, and on one occasion, shook him so violently that his head flopped back and forth several times. (Id.)   

Plaintiff claims the principal, Defendant Haywood Thompson (“Thompson”), witnessed the abuse but did nothing to stop it or warn K.D.’s parents.  (Id.)  Plaintiff also alleges that, as Brandt’s employer, Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”), is liable for her acts as they were committed in the course and scope of her employment.  Plaintiff also alleges LAUSD negligently hired, supervised and retained Brandt.  (Id. ¶¶85-92.)        

The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention, (3) battery, (4) assault, (5) violations of the Ralph Civil Rights Act, (6) violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, (7) violations of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, and (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress.   

This hearing is on a petition to approve minor’s compromise.  LAUSD agreed to pay a total settlement amount of $350,000.  The settlement is being apportioned as follows: 30% of the settlement (or $105,000) is allocated for attorneys’ fees; $16,895.73 is being paid to Medi-Cal to reimburse medical expenses; $15,897.10 is for litigation costs, and the remaining $212,207.17 will be deposited into an annuity for the benefit of K.D., subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court.  All procedural requirements have been met, as Petitioner has completed a Judicial Council Form MC-351 on the minor’s behalf.¿¿There is no opposition to the petition.  ¿ 

 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Compromises of disputed claims brought by minors are governed in part by Code of Civil Procedure section 372.¿ The statute allows guardians ad litem to appear in court on behalf of minor claimants and gives the guardian ad litem the power to compromise minors’ claims “with the approval of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending.”¿ A petition for court approval of a compromise must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise or covenant.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)¿ California Rules of Court rule 7.952(a) requires the attendance of the petitioner and claimant at the hearing on the compromise of the claim unless the Court for good causes dispenses with their personal appearance.¿ 

“Neither section 372 nor the California Rules of Court (rules 7.950 & 7.952) contemplates a noticed motion and adversary hearing when court approval of a minor’s compromise is sought. Although we need not decide the question, it would appear that a petition to approve or disapprove a minor’s compromise may be decided by the superior court, ex parte, in chambers.”¿ (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337.)¿¿¿ 

California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(a), requires the Court to use “a reasonable fee standard” when approving and allowing the amount of attorneys’ fees payable from money to be paid for the benefit of a person with a disability and requires that the Court “give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor . . . and evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made, except where the attorney and the representative of the minor . . . contemplated that the attorney’s fee would be affected by later events.”¿¿¿¿ 

California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b), sets forth fourteen nonexclusive factors the Court may consider in determining a reasonable attorney’s fee.¿ California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(c), requires that a petition requesting Court approval and allowance of an attorney’s fee under rule 7.955(a) must include a declaration from the attorney that addresses the factors listed in rule 7.955(b) that are applicable to the matter before the Court.¿¿ 

DISCUSSION 

 

Petitioner Capresha Hawthorne seeks court approval for a settlement under which the minor claimant (K.D.) would receive $212,207.17.¿ This amount is after deduction of attorneys’ fees for $105,000, litigation costs of $15,896.10, and reimbursement to Medi-Cal of $16,895.73.  ¿ 

 

The Declaration of Omar Qureshi provides sufficient support for the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees.¿ First, the fees are pursuant to a contingency fee agreement for 30% of any recoveries.  The fee allocation reflected the risk that counsel would receive no compensation and a total loss of all expenditures if the case did not result in an award for Plaintiff.  That fee allocation also reflected that counsel would delay taking payment until the matter was favorably resolved.  Counsel advanced costs of $15,897.10.  He took the case in July 2020, and his fees will not be paid until after the minor’s compromise is completed and Defendants issue the check, which will likely not be until October 2023.  (Qureshi Decl. ¶¶1, 17.)   

Second, the value of counsel’s services is proportionate to the amount of fees sought.  Counsel expended 210.99 hours in litigating the matter, including opposing a demurrer and motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication.  Based on his hourly rate of $550, the value of his services is $116,339.50 which is greater than the amount of contingency fees he is seeking ($105,000).  Also, counsel usually charges a 45% contingency fee but for this case, he agreed to a 30% contingency fee.  (Id. ¶3.) 

Third, the issues involved were difficult and required skill to handle properly.  Plaintiff had to establish that the school was liable for the actions of a very experienced teacher, who had no history of harming students.  Also, Plaintiff was claiming extensive non-economic damages from a singular event, and it was very difficult to prove to Defendants that Plaintiff was in fact suffering from long-lasting trauma.  (Id. ¶1.)  

Fourth, Plaintiff’s recovery was fair and reasonable.  Plaintiff recovered $350,000, almost all of which was for non-economic damages which were difficult to prove.   

Fifth, counsel had experience litigating cases against school districts in general and LAUSD in particular.  He had favorably resolved cases involving injuries sustained at school and involving students with special needs.  Last year, he won a $45 million verdict in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of two disabled students against Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.  He was selected to the National Trial Lawyers Top 40 Under 40.  He won one of the top 100 verdicts in the United States according to the National Law Journal, and according to Top Verdict, he won the 13th biggest verdict in California in 2022.  (Id. ¶¶ 1, 8.)  

On these facts, the Court concludes the settlement and its apportionment is fair and reasonable and grants the petition to approve minor’s compromise.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the petition to approve minor’s compromise.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: September 8, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court