Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV41887, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV41887 Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 15, 2021, Plaintiffs Noe Moreno, Amalia Moreno, Yulisa Rojo (“Rojo”), a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Natalia Moreno, and Monique De Haro (“De Haro”), a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Natalia Moreno filed this action against Defendants Lei Zhuo and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On November 16, 2021, the Court appointed Natalia Moreno to serve as guardian ad litem for De Haro.
On November 19, 2021, the Court appointed Natalia Moreno to serve as guardian ad litem for Rojo.
On April 28, 2023, Plaintiff “Noe Romero” filed a notice of settlement. On May 1, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the Court that the parties had settled.
On April 11, 2024, Petitioner Natalia Moreno (“Petitioner”) filed (1) a petition to approve the compromise of De Haro’s claims and (2) a petition to approve the compromise of Rojo’s claims. The petitions were set to be heard on May 9, 2024.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PETITIONER’S REQUESTS
Petitioner asks the Court to approve the compromise of the pending actions of minor Plaintiffs De Haro and Rojo.
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
Sections 5 to 7 of the petition state that the facts, events, and circumstances of the accident, De Haro’s injuries, and De Haro’s treatment are “not applicable.” Yet Attachment 13a to the petition states: “This matter arises out of a November 28, 2019, incident. Plaintiffs were lawfully operating their vehicle eastbound on SR-91 near Alameda St. Defendant operated his vehicle eastbound on SR-91 without caution and in such an unsafe manner that it violently collided into Plaintiffs' vehicle. A settlement was reached with $1,000 for Monique De Haro.” In addition, Section 13b of the petition requests reimbursement for items obtained from “Diversified Medical,” which suggests that De Haro may have had medical treatment. Therefore, Petitioner can and should provide additional information in Sections 5 to 7 of the petition.
Section 11b(5) of the petition does not identify all of the parties who are receiving settlement payments because it does not list Yulisa Rojo.
Section 13a of the petition does not list the amount of attorney’s fees requested. Section 16c of the petition asks for attorney’s fees of $400.00, which is 40 percent of the gross settlement amount. California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, “requires a trial court, in determining reasonable attorney fees, to balance an attorney's interest in fair compensation with the protection of the interests of a minor client. Thus, a trial court ‘must give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made.’ ” (Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1176-1177 (Schultz), quoting Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955(a)(2).)
The Court has considered the factors listed in rule 7.955, including counsel’s declaration and the retainer agreement, and concludes that an attorney’s fee award of 30 percent is reasonable in this case. (See Schultz, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 1175 [“Even if there is no benchmark starting point for attorney fees in cases under California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, a court may of course reasonably determine that 25 percent is an appropriate percentage in a given case”].) Therefore, the Court will not award attorney’s fees that exceed $300.00.
Section 13b and Attachment 13b of the petition list $200.63 in costs. Section 16d of the petition, however, lists “expenses” of $355.08. Petitioner should explain the difference between these figures.
Based on the issues described above, Petitioner should recalculate the net settlement amount.
Petitioner should clarify whether the distribution of the net settlement proceeds will take place as specified in Section 18a(3)(a) of the petition or as specified in Section 18b(2) of the petition. The petition currently contains check marks next to both of these sections.
The Court denies the petition without prejudice.
B. Yulisa Rojo
The complaint filed on November 15, 2021 spells Rojo’s first name “Yulisa.” The petition for minor’s compromise spells her first name “Yulissa.” Petitioner should confirm the correct spelling.
In Sections 5 to 7 of the petition, Petitioner states that the facts, events, and circumstances of the accident, Rojo’s injuries, and Rojo’s treatment are “not applicable.” Yet Attachment 13a to the petition states: “This matter arises out of a November 28, 2019, incident. Plaintiffs were lawfully operating their vehicle eastbound on SR-91 near Alameda St. Defendant operated his vehicle eastbound on SR-91 without caution and in such an unsafe manner that it violently collided into Plaintiffs' vehicle. A settlement was reached with $1,000 for Yulissa Rojo.” In addition, Section 13b of the petition requests reimbursement for items obtained from “Diversified Medical” and “Chino Valley Medical,” which suggests that Rojo may have had medical treatment. Therefore, Petitioner can and should provide additional information in Sections 5 to 7 of the petition.
Section 11b(5) of the petition does not identify all of the parties who are receiving settlement payments because it does not list De Haro.
Section 13a of the petition does not list the amount of attorney’s fees requested. Section 16c of the petition asks for attorney’s fees of $400.00, which is 40 percent of the gross settlement amount. California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, “requires a trial court, in determining reasonable attorney fees, to balance an attorney's interest in fair compensation with the protection of the interests of a minor client. Thus, a trial court ‘must give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made.’ ” (Schulz, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1176-1177, quoting Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955(a)(2).)
The Court has considered the factors listed in rule 7.955, including counsel’s declaration and the retainer agreement, and concludes that an attorney’s fee award of 30 percent is reasonable in this case. (See Schultz, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at p. 1175 [“Even if there is no benchmark starting point for attorney fees in cases under California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, a court may of course reasonably determine that 25 percent is an appropriate percentage in a given case”].) Therefore, the Court will not award attorney’s fees that exceed $300.00.
Section 13b and Attachment 13b of the petition list $192.13 in costs. Section 16d of the petition, however, lists “expenses” of $346.58. Petitioner should explain the difference between these figures.
Based on the issues described above, Petitioner should recalculate the net settlement amount.
Petitioner should clarify whether the distribution of the net settlement proceeds will take place as specified in Section 18a(3)(a) of the petition or as specified in Section 18b(2) of the petition. The petition currently contains check marks next to both of these sections.
The Court denies the petition without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice the petition to approve the compromise of minor Plaintiff Monique De Haro’s claims filed by Petitioner Natalia Moreno on April 11, 2024.
The Court DENIES without prejudice the petition to approve the compromise of minor Plaintiff Yulisa Rojo’s claims filed by Petitioner Natalia Moreno on April 11, 2024.
Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Petitioner is ordered to file proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.