Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV02488, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV02488    Hearing Date: September 25, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Adrian Diaz, et al. v. Baldwin Park Unified School District, et al. 

Claimant Adrian Diaz’s Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES Claimant Adrian Diaz’s petition for approval of compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for minor or person with a disability without prejudice. 

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 personal injury case involving a minor at a public school. On December 6, 2022, Adrian Diaz (Claimant) and Ernesto Diaz (Petitioner) filed this action against defendant Baldwin Park Unified School District (Defendant) and Does 1 to 10. On June 26, 2023, Claimant[1] filed the operative First Amended Complaint, alleging the sole cause of action for premises liability. 

On July 30, 2024, Claimant filed a petition for minor’s compromise. 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.)

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.)

DISCUSSION

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.) The Court notes, however, that Petitioner did not check the box for guardian ad litem. (See Petition, ¶ 1.) 

Settlement 

Claimant has agreed to settle his claims with Defendant in exchange for $65,000.00, $41,433.32 of which will go to Claimant. If approved, $16,250.00 will be paid in attorney’s fees, $524.00 will be paid for reimbursement of litigation costs advanced by Claimant’s attorneys, $6,792.68 will paid for medical expenses, leaving a balance of $41,433.32 for Claimant, to be deposited in insured accounts in one or more financial institutions in this state, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court. 

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor. (Probate Code, §§ 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) The Court has reviewed the proposed settlement and finds the Petition does not disclose all necessary information bearing upon the reasonableness of the settlement amount to Claimant. The Court finds the calculation of medical expenses do not compute. The only documentation of medical expenses provided shows a Medi-Cal lien of $1,892.68, reduced from $2,523.57. (Petition, p. 11 of pdf.) This conflicts with the $4,927.90 stated in Paragraph 12, subdivisions (a)(2) and (b)(4), of the Petition. (See Petition, ¶ 12, subds. (a)(2), (b)(4).) It is also unclear where the $3,320.08 comes from, as there is no documentation to support it. (See Petition, ¶ 12, subd. (b)(2).) Does Claimant have both a private insurance carrier and Medi-Cal. (See Petition, ¶ 12, subds. (b)(2), (b)(4).) It is further unclear to the Court how the $4,900.00 in total medical expenses to be paid or reimbursed from the proceeds was calculated. (See Petition, ¶ 12, subd. (a)(4).) The $6,792.68 in total negotiated, contractual, or statutory reductions appears to not be any reductions, but rather the combination of the aforementioned $1,892.68 and $4,900.00 in expenses to be paid from the settlement proceeds. (See Petition, ¶ 12, subd. (a)(3).) Further, Petitioner did not fully complete section 12 as there are boxes left unchecked and missing information. (See e.g. Petition, ¶ 12, subd. (b)(1), (2), (b)(2)(f)(ii)(B), (b)(4)(a).) 

Attorney's Fees 

The retained attorney's information has been disclosed as required by Rule of Court 7.951. (Petition, ¶ 17, subd. (b).) The Petition does not attach a copy of the legal services agreement for the underlying claim. (Petition, ¶ 17, subd. (a)(2).) Petitioner needs to provide a copy of the applicable legal services agreement. 

Petitioner’s counsel is seeking to recover $16,250.00 in attorney's fees. (Petition, ¶ 13, subd (a).) The Petition does not contain Attachment 13a from the attorney explaining the basis for the request, including a discussion of the applicable factors listed in Rule 7.955, subdivision (b), of the California Rules of Court. (Petition, ¶ 13, subd. (a); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subd. (c).) Petitioner’s counsel must provide a declaration per Rule 7.955, subdivision (c), of the California Rules of Court. 

The Court notes that Petitioner’s counsel’s fee appears to be 25%, which is otherwise proper. However, the above mentioned defects need to be corrected before the Court approves this attorney’s fees request. 

Costs 

Petitioner’s counsel is seeking to recover $524.00 in court filing fees. (Petition, ¶ 13, subd. (b).) The Court finds this amount reasonable. 

Amount to Be Paid to Claimant 

The Petition provides conflicting amounts of the net proceeds for Claimant. Paragraph 15 shows $41,957.32, while paragraph 16, subdivision (f), shows $41,433.32. (See Petition, ¶¶ 15, 16, subd. (f).) Paragraph 15 appears to omit the $524.00 in costs from the calculation. This conflict needs to be corrected. 

Disposition of Balance of Proceeds 

Petitioner requests that the net proceeds, $41,957.32, be deposited in insured accounts in one or more financial institutions in this state, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court. (Petition, ¶ 18, subd. (b)(2).) The Petition does not include attachment 18b(2) for specifying the name, branch, and address of each depository. (See Petition, ¶ 18, subd. (b)(2).) 

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 minor status. However, Petitioner must appear at the hearing. 

Prognosis 

Claimant has fully recovered from the effects of his injuries. (Petition, ¶ 8.) 

Proposed Order MC-351 

Petitioner has not filed a Proposed Order Form MC-351 for the Claimant. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1384, subd. (b); Id., rule 7.953.) 

Timeliness 

The Court further notes that the Petition was filed on July 30, 2024, but was noticed for hearing on July 19, 2024. This is not proper. (See Probate Code, § 3505.) The Court also notes that the Petition was served on July 18, 2024, (Petition, pp. 15-16 of pdf), which the Court finds insufficient time, even if the Petition is uncontested. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the petition without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Claimant Adrian Diaz’s petition for approval of compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for minor or person with a disability without prejudice. 

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.