Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV23118, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV23118    Hearing Date: September 28, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     September 2023                                 TRIAL DATE:  Vacated

CASE:                                Lucero Santos, et al. v. Roosevelt Brown, II

CASE NO.:                 19STCV23118

PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE

MOVING PARTY:               Petitioner Lucero Santos

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

            Claimant, Abby Cortes, a minor, by and through her parent and guardian ad litem, Petitioner, Lucero Santos, has agreed to settle her claims against Defendant Roosevelt Brown, II in exchange for $17,500.

            On June 14, 2023, the Court rejected the Petition because (1) there were inconsistencies on Form MC-350 regarding the request for medical costs and Claimant’s settlement balance, (2) Petitioner had not filed an Order to Deposit Funds Into Blocked Account (Form MC-355), (3) Petitioner did not include Attachment 19b(2) indicating to which financial institution the settlement proceeds were to be deposited, and Petitioner had not submitted a proposed Order Approving the Petition (Form MC-351).

            On July 3, 2023, Petitioner filed an Order to Deposit Funds Into Blocked Account (Form MC-355) and a proposed Order Approving the Petition (Form MC-351).  The Court reviewed the filing on July 13, 2023 and found that the Petition could not be approved because (1) Petitioner did not file a new Petition consistent with Forms MC-355 and MC-351, and (2) Items 6, 10, and 11 of Form MC-351 had not been completed.

            On August 7, 2023, Petitioner filed an amended Petition.  The Court reviewed the filing on August 28, 2023 and found that the Petition could not be approved because it was not clear from the Petition whether the settlement balance was to be deposited in a blocked account or invested in an annuity.  Specifically, Petitioner had selected Item 19b(3) to indicate the settlement balance was to be invested in an annuity.  However, Form MC-355 indicated the settlement balance was to be deposited in a blocked account.  Moreover, Petitioner had not provided information for either the purchase of an annuity or the financial institution where the money was to be deposited.

            On September 14, 2023, Petitioner filed an amended Petition. 

            Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim.  (Probate Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc. § 372.)  The petition must be verified and “must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing on the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)¿¿

            The amended Petition cannot be approved.  Petitioner has filed Petitions that contain the same defects noted in the Court’s previous order.  Accordingly, the hearing for the Petition and OSC Re: Dismissal are CONTINUED to October 27, 2023, at 1:30 p.m.  Petitioner is to file an amended Petition consistent with this order no later than 5 court days before the hearing.  As this is the third defective filing, the Court also sets an OSC re: Sanctions of $250 for failure to file a Petition consistent with the Court’s orders.  The OSC is set for October 27, 2023, at 1:30 p.m.  If Counsel submits another defective Petition, the Court will impose sanctions.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   September 28, 2023                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    Kerry Bensinger

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.