Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV19719, Date: 2025-03-03 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: 22STCV19719 Hearing Date: March 3, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff Ian Law (“Plaintiff”), a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Henry Utama filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”) and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability.
On September 6, 2022, the Court appointed Henry Utama to serve as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem.
On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff, by and through his guardian ad litem Henry Utama, filed a first amended complaint against Defendants County, City of Cerritos (“City”), and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability.
On November 4, 2022, the County filed an answer to the first amended complaint. On November 28, 2022, the Court dismissed the County without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against the City and Does 1-50 for dangerous condition of public property.
On March 10, 2023, the City filed an answer.
On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement.
On December 12, 2024, Petitioner Henry Utama (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to approve the compromise of minor Plaintiff’s claims. The petition was set for hearing on January 28, 2025. The Court continued the hearing to March 3, 2025.
PETITIONER’S REQUEST
Petitioner
asks the Court to grant the petition to approve the compromise of Plaintiff’s
claims.
Section 12a(1) of the petition states that total medical expenses were $8,568.00. Section 12a(3) of the petition states that the total medical expenses were reduced by $6,405.97. This should mean that the remaining amount of medical expenses ($2,180.03) will be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. However, Section 12a(4) of the petition states that only $1,470.03 of the medical expenses will be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. As a result, the petition does not account for $710.00 of the medical expenses.
Section 12b(5)(b)(ii) states that Vimarn Thai Massage charged $710.00, was paid $710.00, and did not reduce this amount. However, the petition does not explain (1) who paid this amount and (2) whether the person or entity who paid this amount has waived his right to be reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. (See Shin dec. ¶ 9; Attachment 14b.)
Section 13a of the petition asks the Court to award $32,000.00 in attorney’s fees, 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 award no more than $24,000.00 in attorney’s fees.
The Court denies the petition without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner Henry Utama’s petition to approve the compromise of minor Plaintiff Ian Law’s claims filed on December 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.