Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV34831, Date: 2023-08-03 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: 21STCV34831    Hearing Date: April 3, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On September 21, 2021, Plaintiffs Emmanuel Vasquez, Yahtsiry Vasquez, Dayana Villanueva, Alaia Vasquez by and through her guardian ad litem Ericka Vasquez, Jacob Vasquez by and through his guardian ad litem Ericka Vasquez, and Josue Vasquez by and through his guardian ad litem Ericka Vasquez filed this action against Defendants Curtis Deondis Morse and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, and wrongful death sounding in negligence. 

On September 22, 2021, the Court granted Ericka Vasquez’s application to serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Jacob Vasquez.  On September 23, 2021, the Court granted Ericka Vasquez’s application to serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Alaia Vasquez.  On December 15, 2021, the Court granted Ericka Vasquez’s application to serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Josue Vasquez. 

On November 19, 2021, Plaintiffs Emmanuel Vasquez, Yahtsiry Vasquez, Dayana Villanueva, Alaia Vasquez by and through her guardian ad litem Ericka Vasquez, Jacob Vasquez by and through his guardian ad litem Ericka Vasquez, and Josue Vasquez by and through his guardian ad litem Ericka Vasquez filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Curtis Deondis Morse (“Morse”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, premises liability, wrongful death sounding in negligence, “General Negligence based on 815.2(a) and 815.4, and 820(a); and Dangerous Condition of Public Property based on Government Code Section 835.” 

On April 27, 2022, the County filed an answer. 

On July 5, 2022, Morse filed an answer. 

On August 5, 2022, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant Southern California Edison Company (“Edison”) as Doe 1.  On September 15, 2022, Edison filed an answer. 

On July 13, 2023, the Court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment.  On January 29, 2024, the Court dismissed the County with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request. 

On July 26, 2023, the Court granted Edison’s motion for summary judgment.  On September 13, 2023, the Court dismissed Edison with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request. 

 On August 31, 2023, the Court granted Petitioner Ericka Vasquez’s petitions to approve the compromises of the pending actions of minors Jacob Vasquez and Alaia Vasquez against the County and Edison. 

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant Shipt, Inc. as Doe 11. 

On October 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement. 

On March 4, 2024, Petitioner Ericka Vasquez (“Petitioner”) filed petitions to approve the compromises of the pending action of Plaintiffs Jacob Vasquez and Alaia Vasquez against Morse, to be heard on April 3, 2024. 

PETITIONER’S REQUESTS 

Petitioner asks the Court to approve the compromises of the pending action of Plaintiffs Jacob Vasquez and Alaia Vasquez against Defendant Curtis Deondis Morse. 

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      

In each petition, Section 10 asks Petitioner to list the settlement amount for the “claimant.”  Here, Jacob Vasquez is the “claimant” in his petition and Alaia Vasquez is the “claimant” in her petition.  Petitioner states in Section 10 of each petition that Morse has offered each claimant $15,000.00.  

However, in Sections 11 and 16, the petitions state that Jacob Vasquez and Alaia Vasquez will each receive $2,500.00 (less attorney’s fees and costs). 

Petitioner should revise the petitions to make the information about settlement amounts consistent. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES without prejudice the petition for approval of the compromise of the pending action of Plaintiff Jacob Vasquez against Defendant Curtis Deondis Morse filed by Petitioner Ericka Vasquez on March 4, 2024. 

The Court DENIES without prejudice the petition for approval of the compromise of the pending action of Plaintiff Alaia Vasquez against Defendant Curtis Deondis Morse filed by Petitioner Ericka Vasquez on March 4, 2024. 

          Petitioner is ordered to give notice of the rulings. 

Petitioner is ordered to file the proof of service of the rulings with the Court within five days.