Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 19STCV23747, Date: 2025-02-18 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Normal Castellon De Gonzalez, guardian at litem for Anderson Zelaya Castellon (“Petitioner”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition or reply has been filed.

This action involves minor plaintiffs who have sued Los Angeles Unified School District based on allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated by Defendant Daniel Ayon (“Ayon”), who was employed as a staff coordinator in the Beyond the Bell after-school program attended by plaintiffs at Amestoy Elementary School in Gardena, California.

On January 28, 2025, Petitioner filed this petition (the “Petition”) for approval of a minor’s compromise for settlement of this action as it relates to Anderson Zelaya Castellon, a minor (the “Claimant”). The Petition is unopposed.

Under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 372, any compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment made for a minor or adult with a disability must be approved by the Court. (See also Probate Code § 3600, subd. (b) [a compromise or covenant for a disputed claim or damages, money, or other property of a minor or person who lacks legal capacity is valid only after it has been approved by the superior court].) A petition for court approval of a compromise of a minor or disabled adult’s compromise or judgment of a pending action or proceeding to which this person is a party 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, covenant, settlement, or disposition. (California Rules of Court (“CRC”), rule 7.950; see also CRC, rules 7.950.5-7.955.)

The petition is generally 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 (Judicial Council form MC-350). (CRC, rule 7.950.) If the Court is satisfied that the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition is in the best interest of the person, then the Court should approve the same. (See Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.)

A review of the Petition shows that it meets all the requirements in CRC rules 7.950 to 7.955.

The Petition satisfies CRC, rule 7.950. The petition was filed on verified Civil Form MC-350 seeking approval of the settlement on behalf of Claimant (Petition, p. 10 [Petitioner verification].) The Petition also contains a full disclosure of all information that bears upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition. (Petition, p. 3, §§ 11.b.(3), 11.b.(6); Attachs. 11b(3) and 11b(6).) The Petition indicates the total settlement amount (Petition, p. 3, §§ 10.a., 11.b.(1).), the gross proceeds allocated to Claimant (Petition, p. 3, §§ 10.a.), and the net proceeds allocated to Claimant (Petition, p. 6, § 15, 16.f.)

The Petition satisfies CRC, rule 7.951. This requirement provides that where a petitioner has been represented or assisted by an attorney in preparing the petition to compromise the claim or in any other respect with regard to the claim, the petition must disclose specific information, which the petition contains as follows:

(1) The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney. (Petition, p. 7, § 17.b.(1)-(3) [Thomas A. Cifarelli, Esq., SBN No. 161815, The Cifarelli Law Firm, 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92618.)

(2) Whether the attorney has received any attorney’s fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation. (Petition, p. 7, § 17.c. [has not been compensated].)

(3) Whether the attorney became involved with the petition, directly or indirectly, at the instance of any party against whom the claim is asserted or of any party’s insurance carrier. (Petition, p. 7, § 17.d. [did not so become involved].)

(4) Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter. (Petition, p. 7, § 17.e. [answered “is not” representing another party or carrier].)

(5) If the attorney has not received any attorney’s fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, whether the attorney expects to receive any fees or other compensation for these services, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who is expected to pay the fees or other compensation. (Petition, p. 7, § 17.f.)

(6) The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney. (Petition, p. 7 § 17.a.(2); Attach 17a [stating compensation amount of 40% of gross recovery].)

The Court finds that good cause dispenses with the need for Petitioner to attend the hearing on this matter.

This Petition need not satisfy CRC, rule 7.953. This rule provides that, where ordered by the Court, an order for the deposit of funds of a minor or a person with a disability with a financial institution must be provided.

This Petition need not satisfy California Rules of Court, rule 7.954. This rule provides the requirements for requesting the withdrawal of funds already deposited in favor of a minor or person with a disability pursuant to a prior compromise, which is not the case here.

The Petition satisfies CRC, rule 7.955. This rule requires that the Court determine whether the attorney’s fees charged of a minor or a person with a disability are reasonable. Here, the fees to be charged from Claimant are 40% of the gross settlement amount to be paid to him. (compare Petition, § 10.a, with Petition, § 16.c.) Counsel undertook this matter on a contingency basis and litigation has been ongoing for over 5 years. (Attach. 13a.)

The Court finds that the judgment allocation is in the best interests of Claimant. (See Pearson v. Superior Court, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338.) Claimant will receive a gross settlement of $4,000,000.00. (Petition, p. 3, §§ 10.a.) The remaining part of the settlement collected will be distributed to the other plaintiffs in proportion to the harm suffered. (Petition, p. 3, §§ 11.b, Attach. 11b(6).). Thus, the Petition is in the best of interest of Claimant.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court