Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV38020, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38020    Hearing Date: January 23, 2025    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On December 6, 2022, Plaintiff Ronald Washington (“Plaintiff”), by and through his guardian ad litem Shana Davis, filed this action against Defendants Danny Hernandez, Pedro Colon, and Does 1-50 for negligence, statutory liability—dog bite statute, and strict liability. 

On December 13, 2022, the Court appointed Shana Davis to serve as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem. 

On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. 

On October 24, 2024, Shana Davis (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to approve the compromise of Plaintiff’s action. 

No trial date is currently scheduled. 

PETITIONER’S REQUEST 

Petitioner asks the Court to approve the compromise of Plaintiff’s pending action. 

DISCUSSION 

          The petition filed on October 22, 2024 states the following: 

Gross settlement:                                            $100,000.00

Total medical expenses:                                 $11,476.01

Medical expenses paid:                                  $1,061.72

Reductions:                                                    $7,907.48

To be paid/reimbursed from proceeds:           $2,506.81

Liens:                                                             $2,506.81

Attorney’s fees:                                             $40,000.00

Costs:                                                             $7,248.99

Net balance:                                                   $50,244.20

           The Court cannot approve a petition unless it shows that all medical expenses that have not been waived or reduced will be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds.  Here, Section 12a(1) of the petition states that total medical expenses were $11,476.01.  Section 12a(3) of the petition states that this amount was reduced by $7,907.48.  This should mean that the remaining medical expenses ($3,568.53) will be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds.  However, Section 12a(4) of the petition states that only $2,506.81 will be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds.  As a result, $1,061.72 of the medical expenses are unaccounted for. 

While Section 12a(2) of the petition states that $1,061.72 of the medical expenses were paid, the petition does not explain whether the person or entity which paid these expenses has waived its right to be reimbursed from the settlement proceeds.  If Medi-Cal’s payment of $491.65 accounts for part of the $1,061.72 payment of medical expenses, it is unclear if the Department of Health Care Services’ reduction from $491.65 to $356.81 is included in the Section 12a(3) reduction amount of $7,907.48. 

In addition, while Section 12a(2) of the petition states that $1,061.72 of Plaintiff’s medical expenses were paid, and the attached letter from the Department of Health Care Services states that Medi-Cal paid $491.65 of those expenses, the petition does not appear to explain who paid the remaining $570.07 in medical expenses and whether the person or entity who paid those expenses has waived the right to be reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. 

          Although Section 12a(1) states that total medical expenses were $11,476.01, Section 12b(5)(b) of the petition lists only Ashley Psychology Center, which charged $2,150.00, and the Department of Health Care Services, which paid $491.65.  Petitioner should provide additional information showing all the medical expenses which Plaintiff incurred, including the charges which Medi-Cal paid.  

Similarly, the petition does not explain the source of the $7,907.48 reduction amount listed in Section 12a(3) aside from the Department of Health Care Services’ reduction of its charges from $491.65 to $356.81.          

          Petitioner asks the Court to approve an award of $40,000.00 in attorney’s fees, an amount that 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 $30,000.00 in attorney’s fees. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES without prejudice the petition to approve the compromise of minor Plaintiff Ronald Washington’s action filed by Petitioner Shana Davis on October 24, 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.