Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV25410, Date: 2025-04-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV25410 Hearing Date: April 7, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 5, 2022, Plaintiffs Carolina Valencia, Sofia Mejia, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Carolina Valencia, Ava Mejia, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Carolina Valencia, Elia Mejia, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Carolina Valencia, Mason Mejia, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Carolina Valencia, Melissa Nieto, and Ryan Nieto, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Melissa Nieto filed this action against Defendants City of Alhambra (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for negligence and dangerous condition of public property.
On February 3, 2023, the Court appointed Melissa Nieto to serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Ryan Nieto.
On February 6, 2023, the Court appointed Carolina Valencia to serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiffs Sofia Mejia, Elia Mejia, Ava Mejia, and Mason Mejia.
On January 11, 2024 and February 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed notices of settlement.
On February 9, 2024, Defendant filed an answer.
On February 5, 2025, Petitioner Carolina Valencia filed petitions to approve the compromise of the claims of minor Plaintiffs Sofia Mejia and Ava Mejia and Petitioner Melissa Nieto filed a petition to approve the compromise of minor Plaintiff Ryan Nieto’s claims. The petitions were set for hearing on April 4, 2025. The Court continued the hearings to April 7, 2025.
PETITIONERS’ REQUESTS
Petitioners Carolina Valencia and Melissa Nieto asks the Court to approve the compromise of the claims of minor Plaintiffs Sofia Mejia, Ava Mejia, and Ryan Nieto.
DISCUSSION
A. Sofia Mejia
Section 13a of the petition requests $500.00 in attorney’s fees. In Section 16 of the petition, the $500.00 attorney fee amount is included in the calculation of the net settlement amount, resulting in a net balance of “–$749.90” – i.e., a negative balance.
Attachment 10c to the petition, however, states that the $500.00 attorney fee amount has been reduced to zero and the net balance is “–$249.90.”
Petitioner should clarify these inconsistencies.
The Court denies the petition without prejudice.
B. Ryan Nieto
Section 12a of the petition states that the medical expenses of $105.00 were subject to reductions of $105.00, leaving no amount to be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. (See also Section 16b, stating no medical expenses will be paid from the settlement proceeds.)
However, Section 12b(5)(b) of the petition states that the medical expenses of $105.00 were not reduced and that $105.00 is to be paid to the medical service provider from the proceeds of the settlement.
Petitioner should clarify these inconsistencies.
The Court denies the petition without prejudice.
C. Ava Mejia
Section 13a of the petition requests $500.00 in attorney’s fees. In Section 16 of the petition, the $500.00 attorney fee amount is included in the calculation of the net settlement amount, resulting in a net balance of “–$759.25.”
Attachment 10c to the petition, however, states that the attorney’s fees are zero and the net balance is “–$259.28.”
Petitioner should clarify these inconsistencies.
Section 12b(5)(b) of the petition lists medical expenses charged by three medical services providers and also checks the box indicating that the list will be continued in Attachment 12b(5). The petition does not include an Attachment 12b(5).
Section 12b(4) of the petition states that Medi-Cal paid $82.53. However, according to the attached letter from the Department of Health Care Services, Medi-Cal paid $95.00.
The amount owed to medical services providers ($2,188.00) is erroneously listed in Section 16d of the petition. This amount should be included in Section 16b. Combining $2,188.00 with $71.25 (the amount owed to the Department of Health Care Services), the figure listed in Section 16b should be $2,259.25. Because Petitioner is not claiming non-medical costs, the figure listed in Section 16d should be zero.
The Court denies the petition without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice the petition to approve the compromise of minor Plaintiff Sofia Mejia’s claims filed by Petitioner Carolina Valencia on February 5, 2025.
The Court DENIES without prejudice the petition to approve the compromise of minor Plaintiff Ava Mejia’s claims filed by Petitioner Carolina Valencia on February 5, 2025.
Petitioners are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Petitioners are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.