Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from an accidental fire that resulted in burns to Plaintiff Obsidian Jelinek, a three year old child, and her mother, Plaintiff Ashalata Rawat Jelinek.  Plaintiffs were at Defendants Briohny Smyth and Pam Smyth’s home, standing next to a table top fire pit when Briohny Smyth added ethanol, causing the fire pit to explode and burn Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs suffered second and third degree burns.   

Plaintiffs sued the Smyths, the manufacturer of the firepit and fuel (Colsen Fire Pits), the distributor of the firepit and fuel (Gusar, LLC) and Amazon.com LLC.  The operative complaint alleged claims for (1) strict products liability, (2) failure to warn, (3) breach of express warranties, (4) breach of implied warranties, (5) negligent products liability, (6) negligence, (7) premises liability, and (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress.          

This hearing is on a petition to approve minor’s compromise.  Gusar LLC agreed to pay Obsidian Jelink $1,000,000.  The settlement is being apportioned as follows: 25% of the settlement (or $250,000) is allocated for attorneys’ fees; $70,893.64 to medical expenses; $561.45 to costs, and the remaining $678,544.91 is to be invested in a single premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the court.   

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 minor 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 Ashalata Rawat Jelinek seeks court approval for a settlement under which the minor claimant (Obsidian Jelinek) would receive $678,544.91.¿ This amount is after deduction for attorneys’ fees of $250,000, litigation costs of $561.45, and medical expenses of $70,893.64.   

The Declaration of Omid Razi does not provide sufficient information to assess the reasonableness of the fees requested.  It fails to address several of the fourteen factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b).  For example, counsel does not specify the time spent and his usual hourly rate; his declaration only lists the tasks performed and characterizes the time as “countless hours”.  Absent an understanding of how much time counsel actually expended and the amount that would have been due if the fee was fixed as opposed to contingent, the Court cannot assess the value of the services counsel performed or the time and labor.  (See Cal. R. Ct. Rule 7.955(b)(2), (b)(8).)  Counsel also does not explain how the issues involved were difficult and required skill to handle properly.  (See Cal. R. Ct. Rule 7.955(b)(3).)  Further, if the fee is contingent, as it is here, counsel must identify the amount of costs advanced by the attorney.  (See Cal. R. Ct. Rule 7.955(b)(13).)   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES without prejudice the petition to approve minor’s compromise.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: August 18, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court