Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 23PSCV01578, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV01578, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01578 Hearing Date: January 17, 2025 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Gabriela Pineda, et al. v. Peter Yulin

Petitioner Gabriela Pineda’s Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability

COURT RULING

The Court GRANTS Petitioner Gabriela Pineda’s petition for expedited approval of minor’s compromise. The Court will sign the proposed order approving compromise of claim (Form MC-351) and the proposed order to deposit funds in blocked account (Form MC-355).

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 an auto accident case. On May 25, 2023, plaintiffs Gabriela Pineda (Petitioner), Andrew Pineda (Claimant), Hailey Samantha Pineda, Sophia Nicole Pineda, filed this action against defendant Peter Yulin (Defendant) and Does 1 to 20, alleging causes of action for negligence and excessive speed.

On October 7, 2024, Petitioner filed a notice of settlement. On December 17, 2024, Petitioner filed an expedited petition for approval of 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.) 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.)

DISCUSSION

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

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

Settlement

Claimant has agreed to settle this action against Defendant in exchange for $20,000.00, $8,650.00 of which will go to Claimant. If approved, $6,000.00 will be paid in attorney’s fees, $209.98 will be paid for reimbursement of litigation costs advanced by Claimant’s attorneys, and $5,140.02 will be paid for medical expenses, leaving a balance of $8,650.00 for Claimant, to be deposited into a blocked account at Chase Bank.

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.

Attorney's Fees

The retained attorney’s information has been disclosed as required by Rule of Court 7.951. (Petition, ¶ 14, subd. (a), Attach. 14a.) There is an agreement for services provided in connection with the underlying claim. (Petition, ¶ 14, subd. (a), Attach. 14a.) A copy of the agreement was submitted with the Petition as strictly required by Rule of Court 7.951(6). (Petition, Attach. 14a.)

Petitioner’s counsel seeks to recover $6,000.00 in attorney’s fees. (Petition, ¶ 14, subd. (a), Attach. 14a.) Counsel has provided a declaration addressing the reasonableness of the fee request, as required by Rule 7.995, subdivision (c), of the California Rules of Court, accounting for the factors specified in Rule 7.995, subdivision (b), of the California Rules of Court. Rule 7.955, 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.

(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

(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.

Amount of Fee in Proportion to Value of Services Performed

Claimant's counsel’s declaration indicates that contingency fees of 50% have been upheld before, and that California courts have routinely upheld 40% contingency fees. (Petition, Attach. 14a, ¶¶ 16-17.) Claimant’s counsel does not set forth the amount of time expended on this matter. The Court also notes that Claimant’s counsel’s declaration requests $8,000.00, which conflicts with the $6,000.00 requested everywhere else in the Petition. (See Petition, ¶¶ 14, subd. (a), 15, subd. (b)(2), 17, subd. (c), Attach. 14a, ¶ 18.) The Court assumes the $8,000.00 is a typo left over from the prior petition submitted in which Claimant’s counsel sought a 40% recovery. (See Notice of Rejection (12/3/24).) The Court further assumes that Claimant’s counsel seeks only $6,000.00, i.e., 30%, as directed in the Court’s prior Notice of Rejection. (Notice of Rejection (12/3/24).)

Novelty and Difficulty

Claimant’s counsel indicates that this matter involved numerous complicated legal and factual issues arising out of different areas of law, including motor vehicle negligence and insurance law. (Petition, Attach. 14a, ¶¶ 9, 17.)

Amount Involved and Results Obtained

Claimant’s counsel states that the settlement amount is $20,000.00. (Petition, Attach. 14a, ¶ 12.)

Nature and Length of Professional Relationship

Claimant’s counsel indicates that Mr. Perez began his representation of Plaintiff on approximately June 11, 2021, and that Robinson Di Lando became involved to litigate the case when Mr. Perez was unable to obtain a policy limit settlement. (Petition, Attach. 14a, ¶¶ 7-8.)

Experience, Reputation, and Ability of Counsel

Claimant’s counsel indicates that Michael C. Robinson has over thirty years of experience practicing law, including personal injury and catastrophic injury matters. (Petition, Attach. 14a, ¶ 2.) Ricardo A. Perez has over twenty-four years of experience, including personal injury and workers compensation. (Petition, Attach. 14a, ¶ 3.) Orion S. Robinson has been practicing law since 2013, and has experience with catastrophic personal injury law. (Petition, Attach. 14a, ¶ 4.) An unnamed associate and paralegal also worked on this matter. (Petition, Attach. 14a, ¶ 5.)

Time and Labor Required

Claimant’s counsel does not indicate how much time was expended working on this matter. (See generally, Petition, Attach. 14a.)

Acceptance of Case Precluding Other Employment

Claimant’s counsel does not mention whether acceptance of this case precluded other employment. (See generally, Petition, Attach. 14a.)

Contingent Fee

Claimant’s counsel states this case was taken on a contingency basis. (Petition, Attach. 14a, ¶ 14.) The legal services agreement provides for recovery of 25% before filing suit or demanding mediation or arbitration, and 40% if a lawsuit is filed or a mediation or arbitration is demanded or held. (Petition, Attach. 14a.)

“California Rules of Court, rule 7.955 requires a trial court, in determining reasonable attorney fees, to balance an attorney's interest in fair compensation with the protection of the interests of a minor client. Thus, a trial court ‘must give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made.’ [Citation.]” (Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1176-1177, italics in original.)

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

Medical Bills

Claimant incurred $9.744.40 in medical expenses, but the medical service providers agreed to reduce their claims to a total of $5,140.02. (Petition, ¶ 13, subds. (a)(1), (a)(4).)

Costs

Claimant’s counsel seeks to recover $209.98 in costs advanced. (Petition, ¶ 14, subd. (b).)

Amount to Be Paid to Claimant

The net amount to be paid to Claimant is $8,650.00. (Petition, ¶ 16, subd. (f).)

Disposition of Balance of Proceeds

Petitioner requests that the net proceeds, $8,650.00, be deposited into a blocked account at Chase Bank. (Petition, ¶ 19, subd. (b)(2), Attach. 19b(2).)

Prognosis

Claimant has recovered completely from the effects of the injuries. (Petition, ¶ 9, subd. (a).)

Order Approving Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability (MC-351) & Order to Deposit Funds in Blocked Account (MC-355)

Petitioner has filed a proposed order for approving the Petition (Form MC-351) and a proposed order to deposit funds in a blocked account (Form MC-355).

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the settlement to be fair and adequate, and the Court GRANTS the Expedited Petition for Minor’s Compromise.

CONCLUSION

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.