Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV04307, Date: 2024-04-17 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: 21STCV04307 Hearing Date: April 17, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 3, 2021, July 29, 2022, Plaintiffs Hernan Vicente, Ani Piliposian, and Nicholas Vicente filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort.
Also on February 3, 2021, the Court appointed Ani Piliposian to serve as Plaintiff Nicolas Vicente’s guardian ad litem.
On May 3, 2021, Plaintiffs Hernan Vicente, Ani Piliposian, and Nicholas Vicente, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, filed a first amended complaint against Defendant and Does 1-50 for negligence—motor vehicle (Government Code section 815.2, subdivision (a)).
On May 24, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.
On January 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement.
On March 29, 2024, Petitioner Ani Piliposian (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for expedited approval of the compromise of minor Plaintiff Nicholas Vicente’s claims.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PETITIONER’S REQUEST
Petitioner Ani Piliposian asks the Court to approve the compromise of Plaintiff Nicholas Vicente’s claims.
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 2 of the petition defines Plaintiff Nicholas Vicente as the “claimant.” Section 11 of the petition states that Defendant has agreed to pay $85,000.00 to the “claimant,” i.e., Plaintiff Nicholas Vicente. However, Section 12 of the petition shows that $85,000.00 is the amount Defendant has offered to settle the claims of all three plaintiffs (Hernan Vicente, Ani Piliposian, and Nicholas Vicente), including $5,000.00 for Plaintiff Nicholas Vicente. Petitioner should modify the petition to clarify the amount to be paid to Plaintiff Nicholas Vicente.
Section 13a(1) of the petition states that total medical expenses were $1,149.00. Section 13b(3) of the petition states that the total amount of medical expenses ($1,149.00) was reduced by $451.67 as the result of negotiated, statutory, or contractual reductions. That should mean that the remaining amount -- $697.33 – will be paid or reimbursed out of the settlement proceeds. However, Section 13a(4) of the petition states that only $451.67 of the medical expenses will be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. This leaves $245.66 in medical expenses unaccounted for.
It seems possible that the amount listed in Section 12a(3) does not include all of the reductions from the $1,149.00 in total medical expenses listed in Section 12a(1) of the petition. The only reduction documented in the petition is the Department of Health Care Services’ agreement to accept $451.67 as reimbursement for Medi-Cal’s payment of $602.22.
In addition, it seems possible that the total medical expenses may have exceeded $1,149.00. An exhibit to the petition shows that Valley Presbyterian Hospital provided $1,149.00 in services, but the February 5, 2024 letter from the Department of Health Care Services lists additional medical care providers and charges which Medi-Cal paid: $461.17 for Altamed Health Services and $9.30 for Renaissance Imaging Med.
The Court cannot approve the petition unless it shows that the minor’s compromise will reimburse all of Plaintiff’s medical expenses that have not been reduced or waived. Accordingly, Petitioner should determine (1) the total amount of medical expenses before any reductions, (2) the total amount of reductions, and (3) the amount of medical expenses to be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. Petitioner should include this information and supporting evidence in the petition.
The Court denies the petition without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner Ani Piliposian’s petition for expedited approval of the compromise of Plaintiff Nicolas Vicente filed on March 29, 2024.
Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Petitioner is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.