Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a car accident.  Claimants Loghan Alvarez and Brooklyn Alvarez were passengers in Defendant Sunny Yuk Sing’s car which struck a parking lot pole.  Claimants were visiting Los Angeles from Chicago, for a gymnastics competition.  Petitioner Stacey Buza-Alvarez is the mother and guardian ad litem of Claimants.  She was also a passenger in Defendant’s car.  Claimants and Petitioner allege that Defendant was negligent.   

After the accident, Claimants were transported by ambulance to UCLA Medical Center and were discharged the same day.  Loghan suffered a fracture to her left shoulder that has fully healed.  She underwent 45 days of physical therapy, and her left shoulder symptoms resolved.  She has recovered completely, and there are no permanent injuries.  Brooklyn suffered left knee contusion.  She underwent two months of physical therapy with a complete resolution of her symptoms.  She has no permanent injuries.  The operative complaint alleges two claims for (1) motor vehicle and (2) negligence.   

This hearing is on two petitions to approve minors’ compromise brought by Claimants’ mother, Stacey Buca-Alvarez.  Defendant (through his insurance carrier) has agreed to pay $52,500 to Loghan which is being apportioned as follows: $18,375 is allocated for attorneys’ fees; $4,686.74 to medical expenses, and $29,438.26 will be invested in an annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court.  Defendant (through his insurance carrier) has also agreed to pay $26,000 to Brooklyn which is being apportioned as follows: $9,100 is allocated for attorneys’ fees; $6,019.34 to medical expenses, and $10,880.66 will be invested in an annuity, 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 each Claimant’s behalf.¿¿There is no opposition to the petitions.  ¿ 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Compromises of disputed claims brought by minors are governed in part by Code of Civil Procedure § 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 cause 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 ... [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 the 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.¿¿ 

Those factors are: (1) the fact that a minor or person with a disability is involved and the circumstances of that minor or person with a disability; (2) the amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services performed; (3) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations or constraints imposed by the representation of the minor or person with a disability or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney or attorneys performing the legal services; (8) the time and labor required; (9) the informed consent of the representative of the minor or person with a disability to the fee; (10) the relative sophistication of the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability; (11) the likelihood, if apparent to the representative of the minor or person with a disability when the representation agreement was made, that the attorney's acceptance of the particular employment would preclude other employment; (12) whether the fee is fixed, hourly, or contingent; (13) if the fee is contingent: (a) the risk of loss borne by the attorney; (b) the amount of costs advanced by the attorney; and (c) the delay in payment of fees and reimbursement of costs paid by the attorney; and (14) the statutory requirements for representation agreements applicable to particular cases or claims. 

DISCUSSION 

Petitioner seeks court approval for a settlement under which Loghan will receive $29,438.26 and Brooklyn will receive $10,880.66.¿ These amounts are after deductions of attorneys’ fees and medical expenses. 

 The amount of medical expenses is not supported by any medical bills.  But the amount is verified by Petitioner.  The expenses are to be paid to a medical provider, Conduent.   

As to the amount of attorneys’ fees, the Declaration of James Meier provides sufficient support for the reasonableness of the fees.¿ (Attachment 13(a) to Petition.)  First, the fees are pursuant to a contingency fee agreement for 40% of any recoveries.  (Attachment 17(a) to Petition.)  Counsel, however, has agreed to charge less (35%).  (Id.; Meier Decl. ¶9.)  The fee allocation reflects 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 Claimants.  That fee allocation also reflects that counsel would delay taking payment until the matter was favorably resolved.  Counsel advanced litigation costs which he is not seeking against the Claimants.  He took the case in October 2023, and his fees will not be paid until after the petitions for minor’s compromise are approved, and Defendant’s insurer issues the checks.  (Meier Decl. ¶¶3, 4; Attachment 17(a) to Petition.)   

Second, the value of counsel’s services is proportionate to the amount of fees sought.  Counsel spent 55 hours in pre-filing claim preparation, meeting with clients and witnesses, collecting all medical records, drafting and filing the lawsuit, investigating the incident, preparing the petitions for minor’s compromise and attending the hearing on the petitions.  He normally charges an hourly rate of $550.  (Meier Decl. ¶¶6-8.)  He is collecting a total of $27,475 ($18,375 + $9,100) from both Claimants, as compared to $30,250, if he were to have billed at his hourly rate.   

Third, the case, while not novel or difficult, still required skill to handle properly.  Liability was disputed, with Defendant making no offers initially, claiming that Claimants were at fault for causing the accident and their injuries.  It took months of discovery and the skill of counsel’s office to obtain a favorable settlement.  (Id. ¶5.) 

Fourth, counsel’s acceptance of the matter precluded other employment.  There are only so many cases like the present case that counsel can handle, particularly since he is a solo practitioner.   

Fifth, Claimants’ recoveries were fair and reasonable.  Petitioner received the highest settlement of $300,000 because she sustained an injury to her knee that required surgical intervention.  Loghan received $52,500 because it was determined through her medical records and Petitioner’s testimony that Loghan’s injuries – a fracture to her left shoulder – were causing her more pain and limited activities than her sister Brooklyn, who sustained only a minor left knee contusion.  Brooklyn received the least amount of settlement ($26,000) given the limited and temporary nature of her injuries.   

Sixth, counsel has experience litigating similar cases.  He has been in practice for over 30 years.   

On these facts, the Court concludes the settlement and its apportionment are fair and reasonable and grants the petitions to approve minors’ compromise.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the petitions to approve minors’ compromise.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: May 23, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court