Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 21STCV02402, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02402    Hearing Date: August 14, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  D.C., a minor, by and through him [sic] guardian ad litem, Olivia C., v. West Covina Unified School District, et al. 

Claimant D.C.’s Petition for Approval of Compromise of Action for Person with a Disability 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court GRANTS Claimant D.C.’s petition for approval of compromise of action for person with a disability. The Court will sign the Order Approving Compromise of Claim Or Action Or Disposition Of Proceeds Of Judgment For Minor Or Person With A Disability. 

The Court will set an OSC re Proof of Funding of Settlement and Purchase of Annuity. 

Petitioner is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of same within five days of the Court’s order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a case involving abuse of a minor. On January 20, 2021, plaintiff D.C. (Claimant), a person with a disability, by and through him [sic] guardian ad litem, Olivia C. (Petitioner), filed this action against defendants West Covina Unified School district, Canyon View School, McKinley Children’s Center, Inc. (McKinley), East San Gabriel Special Education Local Planning Area, John Mann, Jeannie Ortiz, Jennifer Miller, Jorge Ramirez, Yolanda Cork-Anthony, Diana Marie Casato and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for negligence, Ralph Act Violation, Bane Act Violation, Unruh Act Violation. On February 3, 2021, the Court approved Petitioner’s application and order for appointment as guardian ad litem for Claimant. 

On April 15, 2024, Claimant filed a notice of settlement. On July 24, 2024, Olivia Chambers, i.e., Petitioner, filed a petition for approval of compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for minor or person with disability on behalf of Claimant. The petition is unopposed. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor's claim or that of a person lacking the capacity to make decisions. (Prob. Code, §§ 2504, 3500, 3600 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; see Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337.) "[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors, [is] a role to assure that whatever is done is in the minor's best interests . . . . [I]ts primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor's injuries, care and treatment." (Goldberg v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.) The same protection applies for a disabled person.

A petition for court approval of a compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court Rules 7.950, 7.951, and 7.952. The petition must be verified by the petitioner and contain a full disclosure of all information that has "any bearing upon the reasonableness" of the compromise or the covenant. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) The person compromising the claim on behalf of the person who lacks capacity, and the represented person, must attend the hearing on compromise of the claim unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.952(a).) An order for deposit of funds of a minor or person lacking decision-making capacity and a petition for the withdrawal of such funds must comply with California Rules of Court Rules 7.953 and 7.954. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1384; see also Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rules 4.115-4.118.)

Form MC-350 (Rev. January 1, 2021):

The petition has been verified by Petitioner and presented on a fully completed mandatory Judicial Council Form MC-350, using the current January 1, 2021 revision. (Cal. Rule of Court Rule 7.950.)

DISCUSSION 

Settlement 

Claimant has agreed to settle his claims with McKinley in exchange for $800,000.00, $375,520.24 of which will go to Claimant. If approved, $320,000.00 will be paid in attorney’s fees, $64,479.76 will be paid for reimbursement of litigation costs advanced by Claimant’s attorneys, and $40,000.00 will paid to Medi-Cal for medical expenses, leaving a balance of $375,520.24 for Claimant, to be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court. 

Court approval is required for all settlements of a person with a disability. (Probate Code, §§ 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) The Court has reviewed the proposed settlement and finds the Petition contains a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the settlement amount to Claimant and that the settlement amount to Claimant is reasonable given Claimant's injuries and the medical expenses incurred. 

Attorney's Fees 

The retained attorney's information has been disclosed as required by Rule of Court 7.951. (Petition ¶ 17b.) There is an agreement for services provided in connection with the underlying claim. (Petition ¶ 17a(2).) Copies of the agreements were submitted with the Petition as strictly required by Rule of Court 7.951(6). (Attach. 17a.) 

Petitioner’s counsel is seeking to recover $320,000.00 in attorney's fees. (Petition ¶13a, Attach. 13a.) Counsel has provided a declaration addressing the reasonableness of the fee request, as required by Rule of Court 7,995(c), accounting for the factors specified in Rule of Court 7,955(b). CRC Rule 7.955(b) provides:

(b) Factors the court may consider in determining a reasonable attorney's fee. In determining a reasonable attorney's fee, the court may consider the following nonexclusive factors:

(1) The fact that a minor or person with a disability is involved and the circumstances of that minor or person with a disability.

(2) The amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services performed.

(3) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill required to perform the legal services properly.

(4) The amount involved and the results obtained.

(5) The time limitations or constraints imposed by the representative of the minor or person with a disability or by the circumstances.

(6) The nature and length of the professional relationship between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability.

(7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney or attorneys performing the legal services.

(8) The time and labor required.

(9) The informed consent of the representative of the minor or person with a disability to the fee.

(10) The relative sophistication of the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability.

(11) The likelihood, if apparent to the representative of the minor or person with a disability when the representation agreement was made, that the attorney's acceptance of the particular employment would preclude other employment.

(12) Whether the fee is fixed, hourly, or contingent.

(13) If the fee is contingent:

(A) The risk of loss borne by the attorney;

(B) The amount of costs advanced by the attorney; and

(C) The delay in payment of fees and reimbursement of costs paid by the attorney.

(14) Statutory requirements for representation agreements applicable to particular cases or claims. 

(Cal. Rules of Court Rule 7.955(b).) The Court addresses these factors below. 

Amount of Fee in Proportion to Value of Services Performed 

Plaintiff's counsel contends that an attorney fee of 40% of the sum recovered on behalf of the disabled claimant is a reasonable fee in proportion to the services provided for more than 3 years,  and the result obtained, and reflects the market rate. (Declaration of Christa H. Ramey ISO Petition ¶¶ 9-15.) 

Novelty and Difficulty 

Plaintiff's counsel contends that this area of law is both novel and difficult, and requires a different level of skill and expertise. This case was even more complex because it deals with a disabled and non-verbal client. Counsel states that the case required extensive investigation, navigation of government claim filing requirements, witness interviews, review of medical records, discovery, client meetings, and communication, retention of three experts, in addition to court appearances and drafting of documents. (Ramey ¶ 14.) 

Amount Involved and Results Obtained 

Plaintiff's counsel states that Defendant McKinley will pay a total of $800,000.00. (Ramey Decl. ¶ 13.) 

Nature and Length of Professional Relationship 

Plaintiff’s counsel has been representing Plaintiff in this action since November of 2020. (Ramey Decl. ¶ 14(6).) 

Experience, Reputation, and Ability of Counsel 

Plaintiff’s counsel states that she has been practicing since 2000, and approximately 75% of her practice involves representing minors in school bullying and abuse cases. Counsel has extensive trial experience and is a frequent speaker and author on topics in this area of the law. Counsel has also received numerous awards and recognitions. (Ramey Decl. ¶ 14(7).) 

Time and Labor Required 

Plaintiffs' counsel has been working on this case for more than three years, and estimates that more than 1000 hours of work were performed on this case. (Ramey Deck. ¶ 14(8).) 

Acceptance of Case Precluding Other Employment 

Plaintiff’s counsel does not address whether acceptance of this case precluded other employment. 

Contingent Fee 

Plaintiff’s counsel states this case was taken strictly on a contingency basis, and all costs and expenses, in the total amount of $64,479.76 were borne by Plaintiff’s counsel. (Ramey Decl. ¶ 14(4), (13), (14).) 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel has adequately demonstrated the reasonableness of the fee award in light of the factors and circumstances in this case. 

Medical Bills: 

Claimant has incurred $85,321.32 in medical expenses, but Medi-Cal has agreed to reduce its lien to $40,000.00. (Petition ¶ 12, Attach. 12b(4)(c).) 

Costs 

Petitioner’s counsel is seeking to recover $6,675.50 in costs advanced by Ramey Law, PC and $57,804.26 in costs advanced by Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP, for a total of $64,479.76 in costs. (Petition ¶13b, Attach. 13b.) 

Amount to Be Paid to Claimant: 

The net amount to be paid to claimant D.C. is $375,520.24. (Petition ¶ 15.) 

Disposition of Balance of Proceeds: 

Petitioner requests that the net proceeds, $375,520.24, be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court. (Petition ¶ 18.b.(3), Attach. 18b(3).) 

Court Appearance: 

California Rule of Court 7.952 requires attendance by the petitioner and claimant unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance. The Court finds that the appearance of the claimant is not required due to the nature of his disability. 

Prognosis: 

Claimant has not recovered completely from the effects of his injuries but has learned coping mechanisms. (Petition ¶ 8.) 

Proposed Order MC-351: 

Petitioner has filed a Proposed Order Form MC-351 for the claimant. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the settlement to be fair and adequate. As the petition is procedurally in order, the Petition for Approval of Compromise of Action for Person with a Disability is GRANTED. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Claimant D.C.’s petition for approval of compromise of action for person with a disability. The Court will sign the Order Approving Compromise of Claim Or Action Or Disposition Of Proceeds Of Judgment For Minor Or Person With A Disability. 

The Court will set an OSC re Proof of Funding of Settlement and Purchase of Annuity. 

Petitioner is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of same within five days of the Court’s order.