Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV11780, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11780    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On March 26, 2021, plaintiffs Marianna Adamyan (“Adamyan”) Anne Tovmasyan (through her Guardian Ad Litem Anne Tovmasyan) (“Tovmasyan”), and Dianna Pogosyan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against defendants Sumedha Dala Gupta and Nagalakshmi Gupta (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting one cause of action for motor vehicle.  

          The Complaint alleges that on March 15, 2020, Defendants negligently operated a motor vehicle on a freeway in Los Angeles, and their negligence was the legal (proximate) cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries.

          On November 23, 2022, Adamyan filed an expedited petition to confirm minor’s compromise (the “Expedited Petition”) on behalf of 9-year-old Tovmasyan.

          The Court denied the Expedited Petition on November 23, 2022.

          On December 23, 2022, at the Expedited Petition’s hearing, Adamyan represented to the Court that she was unaware of the Court’s ruling on the petition and requested more time to resubmit her documents.  The Court continued the hearing to February 2, 2023.

          On February 1, 2023, Adamyan (hereinafter, “Petitioner”) filed a new petition for approval of minor’s comprise (the “Petition”) on behalf of Tovmasyan (hereinafter, “Claimant”).

          On February 2, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the Petition to February 17, 2023, to allow more time to review the Petition.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

The compromise of a pending action for a person with a disability is valid only after it has been approved (upon the filing of a petition) by the appropriate superior court. (Prob. Code, § 3500, subd. (b).)

The petition “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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)

“Except as provided in rule 7.950.5 [concerns expedited petitions], 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).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)

III.      DISCUSSION

Claimant (a minor), by through her Guardian Ad Litem, the Petitioner, has agreed to settle her claims against defendant Sumedha Dala Gupta.

A.   Petitioner and Claimant Excused from Hearing

California Rules of Court, rule 7.952(a), require the Petitioner and Claimant to attend the hearing on the petition “unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance.”

Here, the Court finds good cause to dispense the personal appearance of the Petitioner and Claimant at the hearing due to the Claimant’s age.

B.   Request to Approve the Compromise

Claimant has agreed to settle her claims against defendant Sumedha Dala Gupta for $1,000. (Petition, Item 10a.) After deducting attorney’s fees of 33.3 percent, the remaining balance of $667 will belong to Claimant. (Petition, Item 16f.)  The balance will be delivered to the Petitioner, Claimant’s mother, under the terms and conditions specified in Probate Code sections 3401-3402. (Petition, Item 18b(5); Attachment 18b(5); Topchyan Decl., ¶ 4.)  The other two plaintiffs (including Petitioner) received total settlement of $102,000. (Petition, Item 11b(2).)

The Petition claims that Plaintiffs were travelling on Interstate 5 in the #1 lane and Defendant was traveling the same direction, but in lane #2, when they swerved into the #1 lane and struck the right rear corner of Plaintiffs’ vehicle. (Petition, Item 5.) Claimant only sustained nervousness and anxiety as injuries and did not receive any care or treatment for those injuries. (Petition, Items 6 and 7.) In addition, Claimant has recovered completely from the effects of the injuries and there are no permanent injuries. (Petition, ¶ 8a.)

Petitioner’s counsel’s declaration testifies that after his law firm took over, claims were opened with insurance carriers. (Petitioner, Attachment 13a, declaration of Arutyun Topchyan (“Topchyan Decl.”), ¶ 4.) After extensive litigation (including multiple depositions and mediation), the parties were ultimately able to obtain an offer of settlement before trial. (Topchyan Decl., ¶ 6.) Based on his experience, facts in this case, costs of trial and possible outcomes, counsel recommended that his clients resolve the matter. (Topchyan Decl., ¶ 6.)  Counsel devoted a significant amount of time to this matter and, based on the hours he accumulated, believes the requested attorney’s fees of 33.3 percent is both reasonable and appropriate. (Topchyan Decl., ¶ 7.) He has allocated the filing fees and case expenses against the Petitioner’s settlement instead of Claimant’s settlement. (Topchyan Decl., ¶ 8.)

The Court finds the settlement fair and reasonable given that Claimant only suffered nervousness and anxiety as a result of the accident, and she has completely recovered from the effects of those injuries without having to seek treatment.   

Accordingly, the Court approves the Petition as requested.

IV.      CONCLUSION

          The Petition to Confirm Compromise is GRANTED.

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 17th day of February 2023