Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV27309, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27309    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Claimant Liam Marquez-Garcia (“Claimant”), a minor, by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Mileena Marquez (“Petitioner”), has agreed to settle their claims against Defendant Amadou Lamine Diatta in exchange for $15,000.00.  If approved, $1,131.00 will be used for medical expenses,  $6,000.00 will be used for attorney’s fees, and $0.00 will be used for non-medical expenses, leaving a balance of $7,869.00 for Claimant.

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim.  (Probate Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc. § 372.)  The Court has reviewed the proposed settlement and finds that it is fair and reasonable. Further, the requested attorney’s fees, which amounts to approximately 40% of the total settlement, is fair provided the Petitioner consent to the contingency fee retainer agreement. However, the Court finds the following inconsistencies preclude granting the Petition at this time:

Claimant is seven years old and the net settlement proceeds are only $7,869.00. Further, Petitioner alleges that there is no existing guardianship of the estate for the minor claimant.  (Section 18b).) Petitioner requests both that a guardian of the estate is appointed to receive the settlement proceeds (Section 18b(1)) and that the court order the proceeds to be distributed to a minor's settlement trust (Section 18b(7)). Those requests are inconsistent in that the proceeds would not both be released directly to a guardian of the estate for plaintiff and be funded into a settlement trust.

If seeking a guardianship of the estate, petitioner would need to petition the probate division of this court and obtain a ruling appointing a guardian. Moreover, a proposed trust instrument has not been provided for court review. And in any event, settlement proceeds of $7,869.00 would render a guardianship of the estate or a settlement trust economically unviable.

Petitioner may wish to review Probate Code section 3611 regarding the available alternatives for receipt of the settlement proceeds, including deposit of the proceeds to a blocked account or other means for holding the proceeds on behalf of minor that would be in the minor's best interest, and file a declaration or other documentation with the court prior to the continued hearing date to clarify or amend petitioner's request for receipt of the settlement proceeds.  

Based on these defects, the Court continues this hearing to XXXX.

Per California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952, Petitioner and Claimant must appear at the hearing, unless the Court finds good cause to excuse their appearance.  The Court finds that Claimant’s appearance is not necessary, but will require Petitioner (through counsel) to appear.

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 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 23^rd day of January 2024