Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV15387, Date: 2025-03-12 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: 23STCV15387 Hearing Date: March 12, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs Amador Vizcaya and Amador Vizcaya as guardian ad litem for Amar’e Vizcaya, a minor, filed this action against Defendants Haykaz Hovhannisyan (“Hovhannisyan”), Hertz Vehicles LLC (“Hertz”), Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and Does 1-20 for negligence.
On July 13, 2023, the Court appointed Amador Vizcaya to serve as Plaintiff Amar’e Vizcaya’s guardian ad litem.
On September 15, 2023, Uber filed an answer. On October 30, 2023, Hertz filed an answer. On November 8, 2023, Hovhannisyan filed an answer.
On November 27, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement. The same day, Petitioner Amador Vizcaya (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for expedited approval of the compromise of minor Plaintiff Amar’e Vizcaya’s claims.
PETITIONER’S REQUESTS
Petitioner
asks the Court to grant the petition to approve the compromise of minor
Plaintiff Amar’e Vizcaya’s claims.
Section 13a(1) of the petition states that total medical expenses were $4,908.00. Section 13a(3) of the petition states that this amount was reduced by $1,800.00. This should mean that the remaining amount of medical expenses ($3,108.00) will be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. However, Section 13a(4) of the petition states that only $1,800.00 of the medical expenses will be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. As a result, the petition does not account for $1,308.00 of the medical expenses.
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.
Based on the information provided in Attachment 13a, it appears that the reduction figure in Section 13a(3) of the petition should be $3,108.00, reflecting the reductions in medical expenses made by the two health care providers. If this is correct, then the petition would show that all medical expenses that have not been waived or reduced will be paid or reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. Petitioner should determine whether $3,108.00 is the correct reduction amount. If it is, Petitioner should modify Section 13a(3) of the petition accordingly.
When an action has been filed on a minor’s claim, a petition for expedited approval of the compromise of the minor’s claim requires, among other things, that “[a]ll defendants that have appeared in the action are participating in the compromise” or that “[t]he court has finally determined that the settling parties entered into the settlement in good faith.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5(a)(7).) Here, Hertz does not appear to be participating in the compromise and the Court has not made a good faith settlement determination. Petitioner may wish to consider filing a petition for non-expedited approval of the compromise, which does not impose this requirement.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner Amador Vizcaya’s petition for approval of the compromise of Plaintiff Amar’e Vizcaya’s claims filed on November 27, 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.