Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC06856, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC06856    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, April 25, 2024

Case Name:                             KHILYN WILLIAMS, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, ERIKA WRIGHT v. JOSE RUDY AMAYA; PLUMBING AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 100

Case No.:                                23STLC06856

Motion:                                   Expedited Petition to Confirm Compromise of Disputed Claim as to Minor Claimant Khilyn Williams   

Moving Party:                         Petitioner Erika Wright   

Responding Party:                   Unopposed

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Petitioner Erika Wright’s Expedited Petition to Confirm Compromise of Disputed Claim as to Minor Claimant Khilyn Williams is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.     

BACKGROUND

This action arises from an automobile accident which occurred on September 5, 2019. On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff Khilyn Willaims, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Erika Wright filed a Complaint against Defendants Jose Rudy Amaya, Plumbing and Industrial Supply Company (collectively “Defendants”), and DOES 1 to 100, alleging causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence.

On November 2, 2023, the Court appointed Erika Wright as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Khilyn Williams.

On March 6, 2024, Petitioner Erika Wright (“Petitioner”) filed an Expedited Petition for Approval of Compromise of a Disputed Claim of Minor Claimant, Khilyn Williams (the “Petition”).

On March 15, 2024, the Court entered an order setting a hearing on the Petition for April 25, 2024. (03/15/24 Minute Order at p. 3.) The Court noted that “CRC 7.950.5(a)(8) provides that for a petition to be eligible for expedited approval, the total amount payable to the minor ‘and all other parties under the proposed compromise or settlement’ must be $50,000 or less.” (03/15/24 Minute Order at p.3.) The Court noted that “the Petition indicates that the defendant has offered payment of $250,000 to Petitioner to settle claims arising out of the same incident or accident that resulted in minor’s injury.” (03/15/24 Minute Order at pp. 3-4.) As such, the Court set a hearing and ordered counsel for Minor Plaintiff and the Petitioner/Guardian Ad Litem, Erika Wright, to be present so that the Court could “obtain further details regarding the apportionment of the total settlement amount between Petitioner and the minor.” (03/15/24 Minute Order at p. 4.) The Court ordered Petitioner to file supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies articulated in the Court’s March 15, 2024 order at least 16 court days before the scheduled hearing. (03/15/24 Minute Order.)

The Court ordered counsel for Minor Plaintiff to give notice and to file proof of service of said notice. (03/15/24 Minute Order.) Counsel for Minor Plaintiff has not filed proof of service showing that notice of the Court’s March 15, 2024 minute order was served on all interested parties.

On April 3, 2024, counsel for Minor Plaintiff filed a declaration stating the following: counsel overlooked that an expedited petition could only be used if all settlements including those to the claimant and all other parties needed to be $50,000 or less and instead understood that only the settlement of the claimant needed to be $50,000 or less. (Perlstein Decl., ¶ 3.) Counsel states that he apologizes for the oversight. (Perlstein Decl., ¶ 3.) After an initial investigation including obtaining relevant records from medical providers, and negotiations with Defendants, Defendants agreed to a settlement in the amount of $250,000.00 being paid to Erika Wright who is Plaintiff’s mother and the Petitioner in this action. (Perlstein Decl., ¶ 4.) Ms. Wright’s case was settled and funds were fully disbursed, including attorney fees to claimant’s counsel, in June 2023 prior to the lawsuit being filed for Plaintiff and Minor, Khilyn Williams. (Perlstein Decl., ¶ 5.) There was no apportionment of settlement between Ms. Wright and her daughter, Khilyn Willaims. (Perlstein Decl., ¶ 6.) The settlements were calculated based on each parties’ injuries and medical specials. (Perlstein Decl., ¶ 6.)

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Petitioner moves for expedited approval of compromise of claim or pending action on behalf of Minor Plaintiff Khilyn Williams.  

OPPOSITION

            None as of April 23, 2024.

REPLY

            None as of April 23, 2024.

ANALYSIS

I.          Petition for Expedited Approval of Minor’s Compromise  

A.                Legal Standard

            An expedited petition without a hearing, is permitted under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.950.5, so long as Petitioner uses the required Judicial Council forms and meets certain conditions. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.950.5.) A settlement must not exceed $50,000.00. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.950.5.) In order for an expedited petition to be approved, the following conditions must exist:

1.      The 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 connection 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 interest and costs, is $50,000.00 or less or if greater than $50,000.00, 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; and

9.      The court does not otherwise order.

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.950.5(a)(1)-(9).)

B.        Discussion  

Here, the Petition is set forth on the required Form MC-350EX in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.950.5. According to the Petition, Defendants agreed to pay Claimant the amount of $10,000.00. (Petition at ¶ 11(b).) Settlement payments in the amount of $250,000.00 are to be apportioned and distributed to Petitioner. (Petition at ¶ 12(b)(3).) Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,500.00 are to be paid, litigation costs total $384.79, and medical bills total $348.74. (Petition at ¶¶ 17(a)-(d).) Thus, after payment of all fees and expenses, Claimant will receive $6,766.47. (Petition at ¶ 17(f).)

Petitioner has presented medical records which document injuries, treatment, and expenses (Petition at Attachment 9), a negotiated reduction in medical expenses occurred (Petition at ¶ 13(a)(3), Attachment 13(a)), and there are letters which evidence a reduction in medical liens (Petition, ¶ 13(c)(2), Attachment 13(c)(2).) Minor Plaintiff’s injuries have completely healed. (Petition at ¶ 9(a), Attachment 9 at p. 25.)

The Petition indicates that the funds are to be deposited in insured accounts in one or more financial institutions in this state. (Petition at ¶ 19(b)(2), Attachment 19(b)(2).) A declaration is provided from counsel as to attorneys’ fees. (Petition at Attachment 14(a)), and the Petition sets forth the costs requested in the amount of $384.79 (Petition at ¶ 14(b)).  

The Court references its recitation of counsel’s declaration from above and incorporates it herein. While counsel has provided a declaration stating that there was no apportionment of settlement between Claimant and Petitioner, defects still exist concerning the Petition. Counsel has not clarified why the Petition states that Petitioner paid counsel $100,000.00 in connection with the claims giving rise to the Petition. (03/15/24 Minute Order at p.4; see Petition at ¶ 18(b).) Also, counsel has conceded to mistakenly filing a petition for expedited approval. (Perlstein Decl., ¶ 3.) Here, the Petition clearly sets forth that payments to all parties exceeds $50,000.00, as a payment of $250,000.00 has been offered by Defendants to Petitioner. (Petition, ¶ 12(b)(3).)

As such, the expedited petition is defective under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.950.5(a)(8). Petitioner should not have filed an expedited petition given the amount of settlement as to all parties.

II.        Conclusion

            Based on the foregoing, the Petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.