Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV32133, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32133    Hearing Date: October 24, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

 

 

HEARING DATE:      October 24, 2023                                         TRIAL DATE:  March 29, 2024

                                                          

CASE:                                Selena Valdez, et al. v. Jazmine Desarae Minor, et al.

 

CASE NO.:                 22STCV32133

 

 

PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE

 

MOVING PARTY:               Petitioner Carlos Valdez

 

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

 

 

            Claimant, Nadya Valdez, a minor, by and through her parent, Petitioner Carlos Valdez, has agreed to settle her claims against Defendants, Jazmine Desarae Minor and Rosa Dilia Barrahona, in exchange for a lump sum of $27,500.

 

            The Petition was heard on August 24, 2023.  The Court could not approve the Petition because (1) Petitioner did not include proposed orders on Form MC-351 or MC-355; Item 18b(2) stated an incorrect settlement amount after deductions for medical expenses, attorney’s fees, and other expenses; and (3) Petitioner improperly indicated at Item 1 that was Claimant’s guardian ad litem when there was indication Petitioner had been appointed guardian ad litem.

 

            On September 20, 2023, Petitioner filed an amended Petition.  The amended Petition was heard on September 28, 2023.  The Court noted that Petitioner had cured most of the previous defects.  The Court also found the settlement amount and the request for attorney’s fees to be fair and reasonable.  However, the Court could not approve the Petition because Petitioner indicated at Item 3 of Form MC-355 that the settlement funds belonging to Claimant were to be deposited in a blocked account opened in the legal name of the petitioner as guardian ad litem of Claimant.  Petitioner had not been appointed Claimant’s guardian ad litem yet.

 

            On October 18, 2023, Petitioner filed an amended Petition and Form MC-355. If approved, $4,375 will be used for medical expenses, $6,875 will be used for attorney’s fees, and $377.23 will be used for other expenses, leaving a balance of $15,872.77 for Claimant to be deposited at Wells Fargo Bank in San Fernando, California, subject to withdrawal only upon authorization of the court.

 

            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.)¿¿

 

            Petitioner has cured the defect noted in the Court’s previous order.  Petitioner now indicates at Item 3 of Form MC-355 that the settlement funds belonging to Claimant are to be deposited in a blocked account opened in the legal name of the petitioner as parent of Claimant. 

           

            Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED.  The Court sets an OSC re: Proof of Deposit (minor – Nadya Valdez) for December 15, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.953, subd. (a).)¿ If an acknowledgement of receipt by the financial institution is filed before that date, no appearance will be required.¿¿

 

            Moving party to give notice.   

 

 

Dated:   October 24, 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.