Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV34149, Date: 2024-10-29 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: 21STCV34149    Hearing Date: October 29, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On September 16, 2021, Plaintiff Artur Yeghiazaryan, by and through his guardian ad litem Davit Yeghiazaryan, filed this action against Defendants Haroutyoun Harry Khardalyan (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On October 12, 2021, the Court appointed Davit Yeghiazaryan as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Artur Yeghiazaryan. 

On May 10, 2022, Defendant filed an answer. 

At a final status conference on March 2, 2023, counsel informed the Court that the case had been settled. 

On November 14, 2023, and April 9, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s requests for a continuance to file a petition for minor’s compromise. 

On June 17, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to enforce a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or, in the alternative, to dismiss the action with prejudice. The motion was set for hearing on August 14, 2024. Plaintiff did not filed an opposition. 

On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel asked for more time to file the petition to approve minor’s compromise, saying he was having trouble communicating with his client. The Court set an order to show cause re: dismissal (settlement) on October 15, 2024. 

On August 14, 2024, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to enforce settlement or, in the alternative, to dismiss the case and ordered Plaintiff, by and through his guardian ad litem Davit Yeghiazaryan, to file a petition to approve minor’s compromise and notice of settlement within 30 days. 

On September 12, 2024, Petitioner Davit Yeghiazaryan (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for expedited approval of a minor’s compromise.  

PETITIONER’S REQUEST 

Petitioner asks the Court for expedited approval of the compromise of the pending action of minor Plaintiff Artur Yeghiazaryan. 

DISCUSSION 

Petitioner has not completed Section 13c of the petition by stating whether Medi-Cal paid any of Plaintiff’s medical expenses.  If Medi-Cal paid any of Plaintiff’s medical expenses, Petitioner must complete Section 13c(2)(a) and (b) of the petition. 

Section 13a(1) of the petition states that total medical expenses were $54,505.53.  Section 13a(3) of the petition states that the total medical expenses were reduced by $22,394.53.  This should mean that the remaining amount of medical expenses ($32,111.00) should be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds.  However, Sections 13a(4) and 17b of the petition state that only $13,550.00 of the medical expenses will be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds.  As a result, $18,561.00 of the medical expenses remain unaccounted for.

The Court understands that Section 13a(2) of the petition states that $9,705.13 of the medical expenses were paid.  However, the petition does not explain if the persons or entities who paid that amount have (1) waived their right to be reimbursed for that payment, (2) have reduced the amounts for which they claim reimbursement, or (3) are entitled to be reimbursed from the settlement proceeds for that entire amount.  The Court cannot approve a petition unless it shows that all medical expenses that have not been waived or reduced will be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds.  

Section 13d of the petition states that the claimant’s health plan is requesting reimbursement of $5,000 for medical expenses.  Section 13(f)(2) of the petition states that claimant’s medical providers are requesting $13,550 in reimbursement for medical expenses.  Assuming the medical providers will be reimbursed $13,550 out of the settlement proceeds as stated in Sections 13a(4) and 17b of the petition, Section 13 does not explain how the medical plan will receive $5,000 reimbursement. 

Section 16 of the petition states that the net balance is $22,399.  Section 17f of the petition states that the net balance is $23,399.

The Court denies the petition. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES without prejudice the petition for expedited approval of the compromise of minor Plaintiff Artur Yeghiazaryan’s case filed by Petitioner Davit Yeghiazaryan on September 12, 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.