Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02315, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV02315 Hearing Date: March 11, 2025 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: S.H.C.,
a minor, by and through her Guardian ad litem, Madai Castro Chavarria, et al.
v. Jose Daniel Vega Ruiz
Claimant S.H.C.’s Petition for
Minor’s Compromise
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court DENIES Claimant S.H.C.’s petition for minor’s compromise 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 action. On July 28, 2023, plaintiff S.H.C. (Claimant), a minor, by and through her Guardian ad litem, Madai Castro Chavarria (Petitioner), and Madia Castro Chavarria, filed this action against Jose Daniel Vega Ruiz (Defendant), and Does 1 through 20, alleging one cause of action for negligence.
On February 19, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for approval of a 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, subd. (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. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)
Settlement
Claimant has agreed to settle her claims with Defendant in exchange for $15,000.00, $7,500.00 of which will go to Claimant. If approved, $7,500.00 will be paid in medical expenses, leaving a balance of $7,500.00 for Claimant, to be deposited in an insured account, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court.
Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor or 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
Petitioner is not requesting payment of attorney’s fees from the settlement amount. (Petition, ¶¶ 13, 14, subd. (b)(2), 16, subd. (c), 17, subd. (f).) Accordingly, the Court need not assess the reasonableness of any attorney’s fees request. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subd. (b).)
Medical Bills
Claimant has incurred $28,800.20 in medical expenses, and the providers have agreed to reduce their liens. Specifically, Memorialcare Long Beach Medical Center has agreed to reduce its liens from $26,960.20 to $7,500, and Care Ambulance has agreed to write off $1,840.00. (Petition, ¶ 12, subd. (5)(b).) The Court also notes an inconsistency here, namely that paragraph 11, subdivision (b)(5), indicates the $1,840.00 would be paid to Care Ambulance from the settlement amount. (Petition, ¶ 11, subd. (b)(5).)
Costs
Petitioner’s counsel is not seeking to recover any costs. (Petition, ¶¶ 13, subd. (b), 16, subd. (d).)
Amount to be Paid to Claimant
The net amount to be paid to claimant D.C. is $7,500.00. (Petition, ¶ 15.)
Missing Attachments 17d and 17e
The Court notes that Petitioner checked the box for paragraph 17, subdivision (d), indicating that Petitioner’s counsel became involved in this matter at the instance of a party’s insurance carrier, but did not provide Attachments 17d as required. (Petition, ¶ 17, subd. (d).) Petitioner also checked the box for paragraph 17, subdivision (e), indicating that Petitioner’s counsel is employed by an insurance carrier, but did not provide Attachment 17e as required. (Petition, ¶ 17, subd. (e).)
Disposition of Balance of Proceeds
Petitioner requests that the net proceeds, $7,500.00, be deposited in an insured account, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court. (Petition, ¶ 18, subd. (b)(2).) However, Petitioner did not provide the name, branch, or address of the financial institution where the settlement amount would be deposited, or provide Attachment 18b(2) as required. (Petition, ¶ 18, subd. (b)(2).)
Court Appearance
Rule 7.952 of the California Rule of Court requires attendance by the petitioner and claimant unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.952.) The Court finds that the appearance of the Claimant is not required due to her minor status. But, the Court will still require Petitioner’s appearance.
Prognosis
Claimant has recovered completely from the effects of her injuries. (Petition, ¶ 8, subd. (a).)
Proposed Order MC-351 & Missing Proposed Order MC-355
Petitioner has filed a Proposed Order Form MC-351 for the claimant. However, since Petitioner is also requesting to deposit the settlement amount into a bank account subject to the Court’s approval for withdrawals, i.e., a “blocked account,” Petitioner also needed to submit a proposed order on form MC-355. (See MC-351, ¶ 8, subd. (b)(1).)
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the petition without prejudice. The Court directs Petitioner to correct the defects identified herein upon resubmission of the petition for minor’s compromise.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Claimant S.H.C.’s petition for minor’s compromise 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.