Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV21259, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV21259 Hearing Date: April 9, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff Meir Reichman (“Plaintiff”), a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Mitchell Reichman, filed this action against Defendants John Philip Ingco Panis, Luis Panis, and Does 1-60 for general negligence and motor vehicle tort.
On February 27, 2024, Petitioner Mitch Reichman filed a petition to approve the compromise of minor Meir Reichman’s action, to be heard on April 9, 2024.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PETITIONER’S REQUEST
Petitioner Mitch Reichman asks the Court to approve the compromise of the pending action of Plaintiff Meir Reichman.
DISCUSSION
In the Court’s January 23, 2024 order denying Petitioner's petition for expedited approval of a minor's compromise without prejudice, the Court explained that the benefits that Plaintiff will receive from his own insurance carrier are not a “settlement” amount for purposes of the petition to approve a minor’s compromise and Petitioner should not include these benefits in the petition. The Court also explained that the petition should calculate attorney’s fees based only on the amount that Defendants and their insurance carriers will pay to settle the case (i.e., $15,000). The Court stated: “Payments from [Plaintiff’s] own insurance carrier to cover [Plaintiff’s] medical or other expenses should not be used as a basis for calculating attorney’s fees.”
Nonetheless,
in the petition filed on February 27, 2024, Petitioner has included not only Defendants’
$15,000.00 payment, but also the amount that Plaintiff’s own insurer has agreed
to pay ($20,000.00). (See, e.g., Section
16a, Attachment 10c.) The Court
understands that Plaintiff’s counsel negotiated a “global settlement” that
includes these amounts. However, the
Court is concerned only with the appropriateness of the compromise of Plaintiff’s
claims against the Defendants named in this case, including the attorney’s fees
requested.
Petitioner has provided no
authority that would authorize an award of attorney’s fees for Plaintiff’s
efforts to seek insurance benefits from his own carrier. That is not to say that counsel is not entitled to compensation for this work, an issue the Court does not decide. Instead, the issue of whether counsel is entitled to compensation for securing benefits from Plaintiff's own insurer is not before the Court.
The Court denies the petition without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner is ordered to give notice of the ruling.
Petitioner is ordered to file the proof of service of the ruling with the Court within five days.