Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV37768, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV37768    Hearing Date: February 22, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On October 21, 2019, plaintiff David Corona, a minor by and through is Guardian ad Litem Monica Martinez (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against defendant Pomona Unified School District (“Defendant”) asserting causes of action for (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability. On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to substitute Edward Soto for the defendant sued fictitiously as Doe 1.

          The Complaint alleges the following. On November 15, 2018, the defendants negligently caused or engaged in the improper or absent supervision of minor children at school, causing one end of a rope to be tied to a cart and the other end unto Plaintiff’s wheelchair while he was still on it. (Compl., p. 4, First Cause of Action – General Negligence.) Defendants then negligently instructed other students to ride and push the cart and pull/tow/drag Plaintiff and his wheelchair. Subsequently, the wheelchair overturned and caused Plaintiff to sustain severe and permanent injuries.

          On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise (the “Petition”).

          On October 7, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the Petition. The Court noted that the Petition is deficient for the following reasons. “Petitioner does not provide any evidence that a guardianship of the minor’s estate is needed or explain why the money should not be deposited into an insured account or invested in a single-premium deferred annuity instead. Also, there is no proposed order on Form MC-351 or Attachment 19b(1).” (Minute Order dated October 7, 2022, p. 1, fourth paragraph.) Therefore, the Court denied the motion and set a hearing for November 17, 2022.

          On November 17, 2022, the Court held another hearing on the Petition, but continued the hearing to December 14, 2022, because Plaintiff’s counsel represented that Plaintiff filed revised documents as ordered by the Court on October 7, 2022, but the filing had yet to appear on the Court’s docket.

          On December 14, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the Petition, but noted that the revised proposed order was incomplete and, therefore, continued the hearing to January 17, 2023.

          At the January 17, 2023 hearing, the Court continued the Petition stating that no papers had been filed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

The compromise of a minor’s disputed claim for damages is valid only after the court has approved it upon filing a petition. (Prob. Code, § 3500.)

“A petition for expedited approval must be determined by the court not more than 35 days after it is filed, unless a hearing is requested, required, or scheduled under (c), or the time for determination is extended for good cause by order of the court.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5(b).)

An expedited petition without a hearing, which is permitted under California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5(a), must meet the following conditions:

1.   Petitioner is represented by an attorney.

2.   The claim is not for wrongful death.

3.   Settlement proceeds will not be placed in a trust.

4.   There are no unresolved liens to be satisfied from the proceeds of the settlement.

5.   Petitioner’s attorney did not become involved at the request of Defendant or the insurance carrier.

6.   Petitioner’s attorney is not employed by nor associated with a Defendant or insurance carrier in connect with the petition

7.   If an action is filed, all Defendants have appeared and are participating in the compromise OR the court has determined the settlement to be in good faith

8.   The settlement, exclusive of interests and costs, is $50,000 or less OR if greater than $50,000, the amount payable is the insurance policy limits AND all proposed contributing parties would be substantially unable to use assets other than the insurance policy limits.

9.   The court does not otherwise order. 

III.      DISCUSSION

On December 14, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the Petition and noted that the “revised proposed order is incomplete because Items 7a, 7c(1)(c), 8a, and 8c(2), 9, and 10 are blank.” (Minute Order dated December 14, 2022, p. 1, third paragraph.)

On January 11, 2023, a revised proposed order was filed.  However, a new petition has not been filed.  The Court’s initial concerns have not been addressed: (1) that Petitioner did not provide evidence that a guardianship of the minor’s estate is needed, or (2) explain why the money should not be deposited into an insured account, or (3) invested in a single-premium deferred annuity instead.  A new petition must be filed, and the issues addressed.

IV.      CONCLUSION

          The hearing on the Expedited Petition to Confirm Compromise is CONTINUED to ______________________ for Petitioner to file a new revised petition and corresponding documents.

Moving party to give notice. 

            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’s 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.

       Dated this 22nd day of February 2023