Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 23SMCV05552, Date: 2025-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05552    Hearing Date: May 8, 2025    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

BACKGROUND

This case arises from an attack at a school.  Plaintiff Pedro Alves is a student at Paul Revere Charter Middle School, a public school.  While on campus, Plaintiff witnessed a student, Frankie Romero Martinez, physically attack another student and Plaintiff’s friend, Nicky Sanchez.

According to Plaintiff, the attack happened in front of and was witnessed by employee(s) from Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) and City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ employee(s) refused or failed to intervene and stop the attack. Because they refused to intervene, Plaintiff was forced to intervene and rescue his friend.  While doing so, Martinez attacked and severely injured Plaintiff.  As a result of the attack, Plaintiff suffered a broken nose and a concussion.

After the attack, Plaintiff claims Defendants refused to appropriately punish, discipline, suspend and/or expel Martinez, allowing him to return to the school and to threaten, harass, intimidate, and terrorize Plaintiff.  As a result of Defendants’ failures, on April 10, 2023, while on the campus, Martinez brandished a switchblade and waved it in front of Plaintiff.  Plaintiff claims that as of this date, Defendants have failed and refused to appropriately punish, discipline, suspend and/or expel Martinez, allowing him to continue to threaten and terrorize students, like Plaintiff.

This action ensued.  Alves, through his guardian ad litem, Cameron O’Reilly, sued Defendants for (1) premises liability, (2) negligence, (3) negligent hiring, training and supervision, (4) assault, (5) battery and (6) negligence (the rescue doctrine).

This hearing is on a petition for approval of minor’s compromise.  LAUSD agreed to pay Plaintiff $10,000.  The settlement is being apportioned as follows: $1,123.86 for medical expenses, $2,500 for attorneys’ fees, $1,210.24 for expenses, and the remainder ($5,165.90) is the balance of the settlement proceeds available to Plaintiff.  The $5,165.90 is to be invested in a single premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court.  There is no opposition to the petition.   

LEGAL STANDARD

An enforceable settlement of a minor’s claim or that of a person lacking the capacity to make decisions can only be consummated with court approval.  (Prob. Code, §§ 2504, 3500, 3600 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; see Pearson v. Sup.Ct. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337.)  “[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 of a minor’s claim, made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 372, must comply with California Rules of Court, Rules 7.950, 7.951 and 7.952. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 7.950, 7.951, 7.952.)  California Rules of Court, Rule 7.950 provides that “[a] petition for court approval of a compromise … of a minor’s disputed claim … under … Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing on the reasonableness of the compromise ….” California Rules of Court, Rule 7.950 additionally requires that the petition “must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).” (Id.)

The trial court is authorized to approve and allow payment of reasonable expenses, costs, and attorney fees in an action concerning the compromise of a minor’s claim. (Prob. Code, § 3601(a); Curtis v Estate of Fagan (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 270, 277-279; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 373.5 (“The reasonable expenses of the guardian ad litem, including compensation and counsel fees, shall be determined by the court and paid as it may order, either out of the property or by plaintiff or petitioner.”).)

California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(a) states that, unless the Court approved the fee arrangement in advance, the Court must use a reasonable fee standard when approving and allowing the amount of attorney’s fees payable from money or property paid or to be paid for the benefit of a minor.  The Court must consider the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made. 

Further, rule 7.955(c) requires the attorney to submit a declaration that addresses the following non-exclusive factors: (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 representative 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) Statutory requirements for representation agreements applicable to particular cases or claims.

DISCUSSION

Counsel’s declaration does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(c).  It fails to address the factors enumerated in the rule, including the fourteen factors stated above.  Accordingly, the Court denies the petition, without prejudice to the renewal of the application with a code-compliant declaration.    

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the petition for expedited approval of minor’s compromise. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 8, 2025                                                                ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court