Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV34742, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV34742 Hearing Date: March 13, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 11, 2020, Plaintiffs Shaun Zhao (“Shaun Zhao”) and Derek Zhao (“Derek Zhao”), by and through their guardian ad litem Qiyu Chen, filed this action against Defendants Chin Ho See, Jane Yuk Yin Lee, and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle, general negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
On March 16, 2022, Defendants Chin Ho See and Jane Yuk Yin Lee (“Defendants”) filed an answer.
On February 24, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement conditioned on the Court’s approval of petitions for minor’s compromise.
On November 14, 2023, Petitioner Qiyu Chen (“Petitioner”) submitted petitions to approve minor’s compromise for each Plaintiff to be heard on November 16, 2023.
On November 16, 2023, the Court denied the petition to approve the compromise of Shaun Zhao’s claims without prejudice and granted the petition to approve the compromise of Derek Zhao’s claims conditioned on Petitioner submitting an order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court’s signature.
On December 19, 2023, the Court signed the revised order approving the compromise of Derek Zhao’s claims.
On January 11, 2024, Petitioner filed a petition to approve the compromise of Shaun Zhao’s claims to be heard on January 12, 2024. The Court continued the hearing to January 16, 2024. On January 16, 2024, the Court denied the petition without prejudice.
On March 11, 2024, Petitioner filed a third amended petition to approve the compromise of Shaun Zhao’s claims to be heard on March 13, 2024.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PETITIONER’S REQUEST
Petitioner asks the Court to approve the compromises of the pending claims of Plaintiff Shaun Zhao.
LEGAL STANDARD
“‘[W]ithout trial court approval of the proposed compromise of the ward’s claim, the settlement cannot be valid. [Citation.] [¶] Nor is the settlement binding [on the minor] until it is endorsed by the trial court.’” (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338; see Prob. Code, §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.)
To obtain court approval of the settlement of a minor’s claims, the petitioner must file a complete and “verified petition for approval of the settlement and must disclose ‘all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise.’ [Citations.]” (Barnes v. Western Heritage Ins. Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 249, 256; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)
DISCUSSION
Section 12a(1) of the petition states that total medical expenses were $49,162.00. Section 12a(3) of the petition states that this amount was reduced by $17,455.02. The difference between these amounts ($31,706.98) should be the amount to be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. However, Section 12a(4) states that only $25,750.49 of the medical expenses will be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. As a result, $5,956.49 of the medical expenses (the difference between $31,706.98 and $25,750.49) are not accounted for.
In Attachment 12, counsel’s legal assistant states that the $5,956.49 figure represents “the amount in insurance adjustments, write-offs, and/or co-payments.” Petitioner has also provided a one-page summary document from The Rawlings Company listing a “Bill Amount” of $49,162.00 and a “Paid Amount” of $43,205.51.
The Court concludes that $5,956.49 represents an additional reduction of the total $49,162.00 in medical expenses, even though the petition does not include this amount in Section 12a(3). Therefore, the total reduction amount listed in Section 12a(3) should be $23,411.51. The difference between the total medical expenses of $49,162.00 and the reduction amount of $23,411.51 is $25,750.49, the amount to be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds (Section 12a(4)). With this understanding, the Court grants the petition.
Petitioner asks that the net settlement proceeds ($148,160.84) be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity with terms and conditions specified in Attachment 18b(3), subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the court. The Court grants the request.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the third amended petition to approve the compromise of minor Shaun Zhao’s action filed by Petitioner Qiyu Chen on March 11, 2024. The Court orders that the net balance be distributed into the single-premium deferred annuity described in Attachment 18b(3).
The Court sets an order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) on May 8, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
Petitioner is ordered to give notice of the ruling.
Petitioner is ordered to file the proof of service of the ruling with the Court within five days.