Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV27055, Date: 2024-04-02 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: 21STCV27055 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 22, 2021, Plaintiff Paulina Oropeza Martin (“Martin”) and Yasmin Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”), a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, filed this action against Defendants J Orozco Enterprises Inc., Orozco Landscape and Tree Company, J Orozco Enterprises Inc dba Orozco Landscape and Tree Company, Carlos Orozco, Ratheesh Kochanpillai (“Kochanpillai”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort.
On August 5, 2021, the Court granted Martin’s application to serve as Gutierrez’s guardian ad litem.
On August 1, 2022, Defendants Carlos Orozco and J. Orozco Enterprises Inc. dba Orozco Landscape and Tree Company, erroneously sued and named as J. Orozco Enterprises, Inc., filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-50 for equitable/implied indemnity, declaratory relief, apportionment of fault, and contribution.
On August 22, 2022, Kochanpillai filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Carlos Orozco, J. Orozco Enterprises Inc., dba Orozco Landscape and Tree Company, Roes 51 to 100, and Roes 1-10 for implied indemnity, total indemnity, declaratory relief, and apportionment of fault.
On October 18, 2022, Defendants and Cross-Defendants Carlos Orozco and J. Orozco Enterprises Inc., dba Orozco Landscape and Tree Company filed an answer to Kochanpillai’s cross-complaint.
On October 20, 2022, the Court found that this case (case number 21STCV27055) and case number 21STCV24901 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). 21STCV24901 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On June 26, 2023, the Court dismissed Kochanpillai from Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request. In addition, the Court dismissed Carlos Orozco and J. Orozco Enterprises, Inc. dba Orozco Landscape and Tree Company from Kochanpillai’s cross-complaint with prejudice at Kochanpillai’s request.
On August 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement.
On December 7, 2023, the Court dismissed Martin’s claims with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On March 21, 2024, Martin (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for expedited approval of the compromise of Gutierrez’s claims.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PETITIONER’S REQUESTS
Petitioner Paulina Oropeza Martin asks the Court to approve the compromise of Yasmin Gutierrez’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
The petition contains the following information about the proposed settlement:
Gross
settlement amount: $4,500.00
Medical
expenses: $519.95
Negotiated,
contractual, and statutory reductions: $129.98
Amount
to be paid or reimbursed from proceeds: $389.97.00
Attorney’s
fees: $1,125.00
Costs:
$113.36
Balance
of proceeds: $2,871.67
Section 13a(1) of the petition states that total medical expenses were $519.95. Section 13a(3) of the petition states that this amount was reduced by $129.98 as the result of negotiated, contractual, and statutory reductions. The remaining amount of medical expenses, $389.97, is listed in Section 13a(4) as the amount to be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. Section 13c(2) states that $389.97 is the amount Medi-Cal has agreed to accept as reimbursement.
Section 13f(2), however, states that medical services providers have asserted $519.95 in liens for payments of medical expenses. If this figure is correct, it means that, in addition to the $389.97 to be paid out of the settlement proceeds to Medi-Cal, $519.95 must be paid from the settlement proceeds to these medical services providers. Petitioner should determine if the $519.95 figure listed in Section 13f(2) is correct.
In addition, Section 17b of the petition does not list the amount of medical expenses to be paid from the settlement proceeds.
The Court denies the petition without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice the petition for expedited approval of the compromise of minor Yasmin Gutierrez’s action filed by Petitioner Paulina Oropeza Martin on March 21, 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.