Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV17145, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17145    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Claimants Dallas Walton, Taylor Walton, and Dash Walton (“Claimants”),  minors, by and through their guardian ad litem, Jovonnie Muldrew, (“Petitioner”), have agreed to release their claims against Defendant Juan Kevin Ordaz in exchange for $5,000 each.  If approved, as to Dash, $500 will be used to pay medical expenses, $1,250 will be used to pay attorney’s fees, and $450 will be used for non-medical expenses, leaving a balance of $2,800 for Claimant, to be deposited into a blocked account, subject to withdrawal only upon authorization of the court. As to Dallas, $1,100 will be used to pay medical expenses, $1,250 will be used to pay attorney’s fees, and $450 will be used for non-medical expenses, leaving a balance of $2,200 for Dallas, to be deposited into a blocked account, subject to withdrawal only upon authorization of the court. As to Taylor, $1,200 will be used to pay medical expenses, $1,250 will be used to pay attorney’s fees, and $450 will be used for non-medical expenses, leaving a balance of $2,100 for Taylor, to be deposited into a blocked account, 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 of Civ. Proc. § 372.)  The Court has reviewed the proposed settlement and finds it to be fair and reasonable.  Further, the Court finds the proposed attorney’s fees, which amount to 25% of the settlement amount, to be fair and reasonable. 

However, the following issues preclude the granting of the petitions at this time:    

(1)   The agreement with the medical provider to reduce medical expenses should be attached to each Claimant’s petition.

(2)   Attachment 12 does not correctly explain all of Claimant’s special damages’ apportionment reasons. The only correct explanations are for Dash and Petitioner.

(3)   Attachment 13a to Dallas’ petition includes information relating to Dash’s medical expenses.

(4)   Item 21 of the Petitions should not be signed by counsel.

(5)   The statement “or any branch” should be removed from item 19b2 of Dallas and Taylor’s petitions.

(6) Item 6b of the proposed Order Approving Minor’s Compromise (MC-351) should be marked to indicate that claimant’s consent to the order is not required, because the claimant is a minor. 

(7) The proposed Orders Approving Minor’s Compromise must indicate the bank information on item 9(a).

(8) The proposed Orders Approving Minor’s Compromise include the incorrect judicial officer’s name on item 1c.

Moving party to give notice.