Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 22PSCV01438, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV01438, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

1. Claimant Leonel Sanchez’s Petition for Minor’s Compromise; and

The Court will continue the hearing on the petitions for minor’s compromise of Leonel Sanchez and Melanie Sanchez to allow Petitioner to correct the defects identified herein and submit the corrected petitions and proposed orders.

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.

This is a dog bite case. On October 24, 2022, plaintiffs Leonel Sanchez (Leonel), by and through his guardian ad litem Rodrigo Sanchez, Melanie Sanchez (Melanie), by and through her guardian ad litem Rodrigo Sanchez, Ana Alba (Ana), and Rodrigo Sanchez (Rodrigo), filed this action against defendants Jose Luis Zamudio, Sandra Perez, and Does 1 to 10, alleging causes of action for strict liability for animals, assault, battery, negligence, negligence per se, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On January 2, 2025, petitioner Rodrigo Sanchez (Petitioner) filed petitions for minor’s compromise for claimants Leonel Sanchez (Leonel) and Melanie Sanchez (Melanie).[1] The petitions are unopposed.

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.)

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.)

The petitions have been verified by Petitioner and presented on fully completed mandatory Judicial Council Forms MC-350, using the current January 1, 2021 revision. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)

Leonel has agreed to settle his claims with Defendants in exchange for $30,000.00, $18,220.38 of which will go to Leonel. If approved, $7,500.00 will be paid in attorney’s fees, $259.23 will be paid for reimbursement of litigation costs advanced by Leonel’s attorney, and $4,020.39 will be paid in medical expenses, including $20.39 to Medi-Cal, leaving a balance of $18,220.38 for Leonel, to be deposited in an insured account within this state, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court.

Melanie has agreed to settle her claims with Defendants in exchange for $15,000.00, $8,000.00 of which will go to Melanie. If approved, $3,240.77 will be paid in attorney’s fees, $259.23 will be paid for reimbursement of litigation costs advanced by Melanie’s attorney, and $3,500.00 will be paid in medical expenses, leaving a balance of $8,000.00 for Melanie, to be deposited in an insured account within this state, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court.

Court approval is required for all settlements of minor persons. (Probate Code, §§ 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) The Court has reviewed the proposed settlement and Petitions and finds the principal settlement amounts reasonable, but finds there are issues with the attorney’s fees requested, as set forth in more detail below.

The retained attorney's information has been disclosed as required by Rule of Court 7.951. (Petitions, ¶ 17, subd. (b).) There is an agreement for services provided in connection with the underlying claims for Leonel. (Leonel’s Petition, Attach. 17, subd. (a).) However, Leonel did not sign it, nor is it clear that Rodrigo signed the agreement on behalf of Leonel. (Leonel’s Petition, Attach. 17, subd. (a).)

Moreover, the same agreement is attached to Melanie’s petition, but Melanie is not a party to that agreement. (Melanie’s Petition, Attach. 17, subd. (a).)

The Court finds these issues problematic and that they need to be resolved before Petitioner’s attorney recovers his fees in this matter.

Petitioner’s counsel seeks to recover $7,500.00 in attorney’s fees from Leonel’s share of the settlement and $3,240.77 from Melanie’s share. (Petitions, ¶ 13, subd. (a).) Petitioner’s counsel has provided a declaration addressing the reasonableness of the fee requests, as required by Rule of Court 7,995(c), accounting for the factors specified in Rule 7.995, subdivision (b), of the California Rules of Court. Rule 7.995, subdivision (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.

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

(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.

(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.

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

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subd. (b).) The Court addresses these factors below.

Petitioner’s counsel’s declarations do not address the amount of the fee in proportion to the value of services performed. (Petitions, Attach. 13, subd. (a).)

Petitioner’s counsel contends this case involved detailed investigation and legal maneuvering, such as sending plaintiffs to treatment, gathering public records, and navigating procedural complexities in obtaining the Medi-Cal lien information, as well as preparing these Petitions. (Petitions, Attach. 13, subd. (a), ¶ 4.)

Petitioner’s counsel states that the amount involved and results obtained were through diligent representation, defending and negotiating the dismissal of a cross-compliant, and avoiding additional liabilities and significantly benefiting the plaintiffs. Petitioner’s counsel further indicates that the total settlement obtained was reasonable given that there were no permanent physical injuries and the children are thriving. (Petitions, Attach. 13, subd. (a)., ¶ 5.)

Petitioner’s counsel indicates that he leveraged his expertise and legal acumen to meet with plaintiffs, answer discovery, coordinate treatment for three plaintiffs, and effectively defend the case against a cross-complaint. (Petitions, Attach. 13, subd. (a)., ¶ 6.)

Petitioner’s counsel indicates that he spent considerable time meeting with plaintiffs, answering discovery, obtaining treatment for three plaintiffs, researching and obtaining public records, and addressing legal challenges such as the cross-complaint. (Petitions, Attach. 13, subd. (a)., ¶ 8.)

This is a straightforward dog bite case and the fees requested account for 25% or less of the total settlement amount, which the Court finds reasonable. However, given the other issues noted above regarding the fee agreement, the Court ultimately finds Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated the reasonableness of the fee award here.

Leonel incurred $5,910.39 in medical expenses, but was able to reduce them to $4,020.39. (Leonel’s Petition, ¶ 12, subd. (a).) Melanie incurred $6,800.00 in medical expenses, but was able to reduce them $3,500.00. (Melanie’s Petition, ¶ 12, subd. (a).)

Petitioner’s counsel is seeking to recover $259.23 in costs advanced by Reyes & Associates, P.C. for Leonel, and the same amount for Melanie. (Petitions, ¶ 13, subd. (b).)

The net amount to be paid to Leonel is $18,220.38. (Leonel’s Petition, ¶ 15.) The net amount to be paid to Melanie is $8,000.00. (Melanie’s Petition, ¶ 15.)

Petitioner requests that the net proceeds for both Leonel and Melanie be deposited in insured accounts with Chase Bank, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court. (Petitions, ¶ 18, subd. (b)(2), Attach. 18, subd. (b)(2).)

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 Leonel and Melanie is not required due to their minor status. Petitioner must still appear.

Leonel and Melanie have recovered completely from the effects of their injuries. (Petitions, ¶ 8, subd. (a).)

Petitioner has filed Proposed Order Forms MC-351 for Leonel and Melanie. However, they are both incomplete from paragraph 4 onward. (See Proposed Orders Approving Minor’s Compromise, ¶¶ 4-13.) Petitioner also did not provide the date and time of the hearing in paragraph 1 of the Proposed Order Forms MC-355. (See Proposed Orders to Deposit Funds in Blocked Account, ¶ 1.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court will continue the hearing to allow Petitioner to correct the defects identified herein and submit the corrected petitions and proposed orders.

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.

[1] The petition and proposed orders for Melanie’s petition indicate her name is spelled “Melany.” (Petition, ¶ 2; Proposed Order, ¶ 3; Proposed Order re Blocked Account, ¶ 2.) The Court assumes this was a typo.