Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV25500, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV25500 Hearing Date: April 3, 2025 Dept: 28
BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff Thomas Lozano (“Thomas Lozano”), by and through his guardian ad litem Elizabeth Martinez Dominguez, and Plaintiff Esteban Lozano (“Esteban Lozano”), by and through his guardian ad litem Elizabeth Martinez Dominguez, filed this action against Defendants George A. Henry, Jr., George Henry dba Thee Plumbing Company, and Does I-IV for negligence.
On August 9, 2022, the Court appointed Elizabeth Martinez Dominguez to serve as Thomas Lozano’s guardian ad litem. On August 15, 2022, the Court appointed Elizabeth Martinez Dominguez to serve as Esteban Lozano’s guardian ad litem.
On February 23, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendant George Henry without prejudice based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s oral request.
On March 13, 2024, Defendant George Henry dba Thee Plumbing Company filed an answer.
On April 17, 2024, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request even though Plaintiffs had not submitted petitions to approve minor’s compromises.
On April 22, 2024, Defendant George A. Henry, Jr. filed an answer even though the Court had dismissed him on February 23, 2024 and dismissed the action on April 17, 2024.
On February 21, 2025, Petitioner Elizabeth Martinez Dominguez (“Petitioner”) filed petitions for expedited approval of the compromises of Thomas Lozano’s and Esteban Lozano’s claims even though the Court had dismissed the action on April 17, 2024. On February 26, 2025, Petitioner filed another petition for expedited approval of the compromise of Esteban Lozano’s claims.
On February 28, 2025, Thomas Lozano filed a notice of settlement.
PETITIONER’S REQUESTS
Petitioner
asks the Court to grant the petitions for expedited approval of the compromises
of Thomas Lozano’s and Esteban Lozano’s claims.
DISCUSSION
On April 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a request to dismiss the action without prejudice. Court staff granted the request on April 17, 2024, even though Plaintiffs are minors and the Court had not received or ruled on petitions to approve minor’s compromises. (See Z. Haning et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Personal Injury (Rutter 2023) ¶ 4:1504, p. 4-283 [“Settlement of a claim made by a minor or an adult lacking legal capacity to make decisions requires court approval”].)
Local Rule 4.115 states: “If no civil action is pending, the proper court to approve [a minor’s] settlement is the probate court, as provided in Probate Code sections 2505(b) and 3500.” (Los Angeles County Superior Court Rules, rule 4.115(a)(1).) Here, as a result of the April 17, 2024 order dismissing the action, no civil action is pending.
The
Court continues the hearing on the petitions to a date to be provided at the
April 3, 2025 hearing. At least 5 court
days before the continued hearing, the parties may file supplemental briefs
addressing (1) whether Local Rule 4.115(a)(1) and the April 17, 2024 order
dismissing the action require Petitioner to seek approval of the minors’
compromises in the probate court and (2) whether the petitions for expedited
approval of the compromises of minor Plaintiff Thomas Lozano’s and minor
Plaintiff Esteban Lozano’s claims, which Petitioner filed after the Court
dismissed the action, are properly before the Court.
Petitioner is ordered to give notice of the Court's ruling.