Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 23SMCV05621, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05621    Hearing Date: September 25, 2024    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

BACKGROUND

This case arises from a car accident.  Mehrad Farkhan was driving on the HOV lane on the 405 south freeway when he was rear-ended by a motorcycle driven by Felix Sanchez.  Claimant Alia Farkhan, a minor, was a passenger in Mehrad Farkhan’s car.  The rear windshield was destroyed from impact with Sanchez’s helmet.    

Claimant suffered severe emotional distress from the impact.  She was undergoing psychological treatment prior to the accident, and according to her therapist, the accident has exacerbated her condition to such an extent that she has difficulty getting into a car or traveling on freeways due to recurring flashbacks that cause near paralysis.  Claimant is receiving ongoing treatment with her therapist to address her anxiety.

This hearing is on a petition for expedited approval of minor’s compromise.  Sanchez agreed to pay a total settlement amount of $15,000.  The settlement represents the payment of the single-person policy limits of all liability insurance policies covering Sanchez.  The settlement is being apportioned as follows: 25% of the settlement (or $3,750) is allocated for attorneys’ fees, and the remainder ($11,250) is the balance of the settlement proceeds available to Claimant.  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.)

Alternatively, California Rule of Court, Rule 7.950.5 provides that, in certain circumstances, a petition for minor’s compromise may be advanced in an expedited manner, and may be made upon a Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350EX). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5, subd. (a).)

A petition for approval of a minor’s compromise may only be made in an expedited manner if all of the following requirements are met: (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 claimant with a disability (exclusive of interest and costs) or the total amount payable to the minor or claimant with a disability 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 claimant with a disability 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 claim from assets other than the proceeds of their liability insurance policies. (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.  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: September 25, 2024                                             ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court