Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 19STCV15763, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 19STCV15763 Hearing Date: November 18, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2019, Plaintiffs Jazlynn Amari Moran, by and through her guardian ad litem Jennifer Moran, and Jennifer Moran filed this action against Defendants Garfield Medical Center (“Garfield”), Jamie C. Lin, M.D. (“Lin”), Ben Ha, M.D. (“Ha”), and Does 1-30 for negligence.
On July 26, 2019, the Court appointed Jennifer Moran to serve as Plaintiff Jazlynn Amari Moran’s guardian ad litem.
On June 5, 2019, Garfield filed an answer. On June 17, 2019, Lin filed an answer. On June 24, 2019, Ha filed an answer.
On March 17, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff Jazlynn Amari Moran’s motion for trial preference. The Court ruled that the trial would remain scheduled for November 2, 2020.
On August 13, 2020, the Court granted Ha’s ex parte application and continued the trial to February 23, 2021.
On August 25, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement.
On October 23, 2020, Petitioner Jennifer Moran (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to approve the compromise of minor Plaintiff Jazlynn Amari Moran’s pending action. An attachment to the petition stated: “Medi-Cal claims that it paid $410,466.68, but the plaintiff disputes that amount. . . . The petitioner proposes to hold that sum in its client trust account pending later determination of the Medi-Cal lien claim, under Welfare & Institutions Code section 14124.76 (separate motion to determine lien claim).” The petition asked the Court to retain jurisdiction of the case pending resolution of the lien claim. The petition also asked the Court to find that the present value of Plaintiff Jazlynn Amari Moran’s future care was $28,185,265.00.
On January 29, 2021, the Court granted the petition to approve the compromise of Plaintiff Jazlynn Amari Moran’s claims and also approved a special needs trust. The gross amount of the settlement was $7,480,000.00. The Court observed:
“Petitioner states that Claimant has outstanding medical expenses paid by Medi-Cal in the amount of $410,466.68. (Pet., ¶ 13b(4).) The Medi-Cal lien in dispute is $410,466.68. (Id.)
“The balance of the proceeds of the proposed settlement remaining for Claimant after payment of all requested fees and expenses is $5,820,895.86.” (Jan. 29, 2021 minute order p. 3.)
On February 18, 2021, the Court signed an Order Approving Compromise of Pending Action (form MC-351). In the order, the Court reserved jurisdiction to determine a claim for reduction of the Medi-Cal lien under Welfare and Institutions Code section 14124.76. The Court also found, in attachment 12 to the order, that “the overall value of the minor’s damages” included “[the] present value of future care, in the amount of $28,185,265 . . . .”
On March 1, 2021, the Court dismissed Garfield with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On April 27, 2021, the Court dismissed Lin with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On April 27, 2021, the Court dismissed the entire action with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request. The order of dismissal did not address the Court’s previous order reserving jurisdiction to resolve the lien dispute. The Court finds that the dismissal order did not deprive the Court of jurisdiction to address the lien dispute.
On August 27, 2024, the Court granted in part the motion of Plaintiff Jazlynn Amari Moran to determine the amount of the Department of Health Care Services’ lien. The Court allocated $115,606.33 of the settlement to past medical expenses. The Court determined that the Department of Health Care Services ("Department") shall recover $71,974.26 on its lien. In all other respects, the Court denied the motion.
On August 28, 2024, Petitioner’s counsel served notice of entry of the Court’s August 27, 2024 order.
On October 3, 2024, Petitioner filed a petition for an order approving the distribution of settlement funds to the Jazlynn Amari Moran Special Needs Trust. The petition was set for hearing on November 18, 2024. On November 4, 2024, the Department filed an opposition.
On October 21, 2024, the Department filed a motion for a stay pending appeal. The motion was set for hearing on December 23, 2024. On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On November 8, 2024, the Department filed a reply.
On October 23, 2024, the Department filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s August 27, 2024 order.
On October 24, 2024, the Court granted the Department’s ex parte application to advance the hearing on its motion for a stay pending appeal. The Court advanced the hearing to November 18, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Petitioner asks the Court to approve the distribution of the settlement funds to Plaintiff’s special needs trust. The Department opposes the request.
The Department asks the Court to stay the Court’s August 27, 2024 order determining the amount of the Department’s lien and to order Plaintiff's counsel to maintain disputed funds in counsel's client trust account pending the Department’s appeal. Plaintiff opposes the requests.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 916 provides:
“(a) Except as provided in Sections 917.1 to 917.9, inclusive, and in Section 116.810, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.
“(b) When there is a stay of proceedings other than the enforcement of the judgment, the trial court shall have jurisdiction of proceedings related to the enforcement of the judgment as well as any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order appealed from.”
Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1, subdivision (a)(1), provides:
“(a) Unless an undertaking is given, the perfecting of an appeal shall not stay enforcement of the judgment or order in the trial court if the judgment or order is for any of the following:
“(1) Money or the payment of money, whether consisting of a special fund or not, and whether payable by the appellant or another party to the action.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 917, subd. (a)(1).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 918 provides:
“(a) Subject to subdivision (b), the trial court may stay the enforcement of any judgment or order.
“(b) If the enforcement of the judgment or order would be stayed on appeal only by the giving of an undertaking, a trial court shall not have power, without the consent of the adverse party, to stay the enforcement thereof pursuant to this section for a period which extends for more than 10 days beyond the last date on which a notice of appeal could be filed.
“(c) This section applies whether or not an appeal will be taken from the judgment or order and whether or not a notice of appeal has been filed.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 918.)
DISCUSSION
A. The Department’s motion for stay pending appeal
Conceding
that it is not entitled to a stay pending appeal as a matter of right, the Department
asks the Court to exercise its discretion to stay the August 27, 2024 order under Code of Civil Procedure section 918. The Department also asks the Court to order Plaintiff’s counsel to retain the remaining settlement funds in counsel's client trust account
pending resolution of the Department’s appeal.
Petitioner opposes the motion but does not deny that the Court has the authority to stay the proceedings pending appeal.
The Court exercises its discretion to stay the proceedings relating to the August 27, 2024 order pending the Department's appeal. The Court also orders Plaintiff's counsel to retain the remaining settlement funds in counsel's client trust account pending resolution of the appeal.
B. Petitioner’s motion to distribute settlement funds to
special needs trust
The Court denies the motion without prejudice. Petitioner may renew the motion if appropriate after conclusion of the Department's appeal.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the Department of Health Care Services motion for a stay pending appeal. The Court stays proceedings relating to the Court's August 27, 2024 order pending the Department's appeal. The Court also orders Plaintiff Jazlynn Amari Moran's counsel to retain the remaining settlement funds in counsel's client trust account pending resolution of the appeal.
The Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner Jennifer Moran’s motion to distribute settlement funds to the Jazlynn Amari Moran Special Needs Trust.
Moving parties are to give notice of these rulings.
Moving parties are to file proof of service of these rulings.