Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC06957, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC06957    Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      PETITION FOR MINOR’S COMPROMISE

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioner Bianca Pacheco on behalf of minor Claimant Joaquin Duenas

RESP. PARTY:         None

PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE OF DISPUTED CLAIM

(CCP § 372, CRC, rule 7.950.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise filed on behalf of minor Claimant Joaquin Duenas is DENIED without prejudice.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of May 18, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of May 18, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

            On October 19, 2022, Minor Joaquin Duenas (“Claimant”) filed an action against Defendant Beverly Villaluz (“Defendant”) arising out of an alleged motor vehicle accident on November 19, 2021.  Bianca Pachecho was appointed Claimant’s guardian ad litem on October 31, 2022.

            On November 15, 2022, Claimant, through his guardian ad litem, filed the instant Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise of Disputed Claim (“Petition”).

            On February 21, 2023, the Court noted several deficiencies in the Petition and continued the hearing to allow Petitioner additional time to correct these deficiencies.  (2-21-23 Minute Order.)

            On March 1, 2023, Petitioner filed additional papers.

            On March 21, 2023, the Court noted additional deficiencies and again continued the hearing on the Petition.  (3-21-23 Minute Order.)

            On March 29, 2023, Petitioner filed an amended Petition and Order.

            On April 25, 2023, the Court noted that additional deficiencies remain and continued the hearing on the Petition.  (4-25-23 Minute Order.)  Petitioner filed an amended Petition on May 2, 2023.

            No opposition has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard

            Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (Prob. Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; CCP § 372.) “‘[W]ithout trial court approval of the proposed compromise of the ward’s claim, the settlement cannot be valid.  [Citation.] [¶] Nor is the settlement binding [on the minor] until it is endorsed by the trial court.’” (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.) A minor, like Claimant, “shall appear either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in each case.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 372(a)(1).) Alternatively, the petitioner may file a declaration demonstrating that he or she has a right to compromise the minor’s claim under Cal. Probate Code section 3500.

            Regarding the substance of the Petition, to obtain court approval of the settlement of a minor’s claims, the petitioner must file a complete and “verified petition for approval of the settlement and must disclose ‘all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise.’ [Citations.]” (Barnes v. Western Heritage Ins. Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 249, 256; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) (Italics added.)

Under Probate Code § 3505, if a petition is unopposed, the Court must issue a decision on the petition at the conclusion of the hearing.

III.            Discussion

The instant Petition was filed on November 15, 2022.  On February 21, 2023, the Court noted deficiencies in the Petition and continued the hearing to allow Petitioner additional time to correct these deficiencies.  (2-21-23 Minute Order.)

On March 1, 2023, Petitioner filed additional papers.  On March 21, 2023, the Court noted the remaining deficiencies and again continued the hearing on the Petition.  (3-21-23 Minute Order.)  On March 29, 2023, Petitioner filed an amended Petition.  On April 25, 2023, the Court noted the following deficiencies and continued the hearing on the Petition one final time.  (4-25-23 Minute Order.)

1.     The Amended Petition is missing page 6.

2.     Petitioner has not completed MC-350 ¶ 12b(5)(b)(i) with information about the medical services provider that must be paid/reimbursed.

On May 2, 2023, Petitioner filed an amended Petition.  The Court notes the following deficiencies in the latest filed Petition.

1.     Petitioner has not filed an updated Proposed Order, MC-351.

2.     The Court cannot discern the amount of medical expenses to be paid as the number is inconsistent throughout the Petition.  It is listed as $2,111 in ¶ 12b(5)(b)(i)(F) and as $918 in ¶ 16b.  Petitioner has attached a summary of medical expenses indicating that the claim amount is $918.  (Pet. pp. 50-51.)

Given that Petitioner has been given numerous opportunities to correct the deficiencies in the Petition and has filed another amended Petition with inconsistencies and deficiencies, the Court DENIES the Petition.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For these reasons,

The Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise filed on behalf of minor Claimant Joaquin Duenas is DENIED without prejudice.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice.