Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02608, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV02608    Hearing Date: August 29, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Jianna Elizabeth Fuentes, et al. v. Nicolas Elias Valle, et al. 

1 - Claimant Eden Lomas’ Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability;

2 - Claimant Emerie Lomas’ Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability; and

3 - Claimant Emma Fuentes’ 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 Eden Lomas’ petition for approval of compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for minor or person with a disability without prejudice. 

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

The Court DENIES Claimant Emma Fuentes’ 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 an auto accident case. On August 24, 2023, plaintiffs Jianna Elizabeth Fuentes (Petitioner), minor Eden Lomas (Eden), minor Emerie Lomas (Emerie), and minor Emma Fuentes (Emma) (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants Nicolas Elias Valle (Defendant), Joseph Adam Pedroza,[1] and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. 

On May 21, 2024, the Court approved Petitioner’s applications and orders for appointment as guardian ad litem for Eden, Emerie, and Emma (collectively, Claimants). 

On June 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement. On August 15, 2024, Petitioner filed petitions for approval of compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for minor or person with disability on behalf of Claimants. The petitions are 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 minor, 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 petitions have 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.) 

Settlement 

Claimants agree to settle their respective claims with Defendant in exchange for $8,000.00 each, $3,250.00 of which will go to each Claimant. If approved, $2,000.00 will be paid in attorney’s fees, and $2,750.00 will paid to Wellness Involved Chiropractic, leaving a balance of $3,250.00 for each Claimant, to be transferred to a custodian for the benefit of Claimants under the California Uniform Transfers to Minors Act. 

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 Petitions do not contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the settlement amount to Claimants, as paragraph 10 of the Petitions is incomplete, and only indicates that Defendant will pay $8,000.00. (See Petitions, ¶ 10.) $8,000.00 seems reasonable given Claimants’ injuries, but Petitioner needs to properly complete the Petitions. The Court also notes that paragraph 11.b.(5) is incomplete as the names and amounts listed total only $56,000, not the $64,000 total amount offered by Defendant. (See Petitions, ¶11.) 

Attorney Fees 

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 claim. (Petition, ¶ 17, subd. (a)(2).) Copies of the agreements were submitted with the Petitions as required by Rule 7.951, subdivision (6), of the California Rules of Court. (Teroganesyan Decls., Ex. A; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.951, subd. (6).) 

Claimants’ counsel is seeking to recover $2,000.00 in attorney fees from each Claimant, i.e., 25% of $8,000.00. (Petitions, ¶ 13, subd. (a); Teroganesyan Decls., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Counsel has provided a declaration addressing the reasonableness of the fee request, as required by Rule 7.955, subdivision (c), of the California Rules of Court, accounting for the factors specified in Rule 7.955, subdivision (b). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subd. (c).) 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

(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, subd. (b).) The Court addresses these factors below. 

Amount of Fee in Proportion to Value of Services Performed 

Claimants’ counsel indicates that the contingency rate for each of the Claimants in this matter is 25%, and claims to have represented Claimants’ zealously in the prelitigation and litigation phases of this action. (Teroganesyan Decls., ¶¶ 4, 9.) 

Novelty and Difficulty 

Claimants’ counsel provides no information about the novelty or difficulty of this case. The Court infers from the Petitions and attached medical bills that this case was neither novel nor particularly difficult. (See Petitions, Attachment.) 

Amount Involved and Results Obtained 

Claimants’ counsel only mentions a 25% contingency and does not mention the actual dollar amount involved or the results obtained. (See Teroganesyan Decls., ¶ 4.) 

Nature and Length of Professional Relationship 

Claimants’ counsel has been representing Claimants in this action since November of 2021. (Teroganesyan Decls., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) 

Experience, Reputation, and Ability of Counsel 

Claimants’ counsel states that she has extensive experience representing Plaintiffs in personal injury cases. (Teroganesyan Decls., ¶ 8.) 

Time and Labor Required 

Claimants’ counsel provides no information about the amount of work undertaken for this case. 

Acceptance of Case Precluding Other Employment 

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

Contingent Fee 

Claimants’ counsel accepted Claimants’ case for a 25% contingency fee. (Teroganesyan Decls., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Claimants’ counsel offered to advance the costs associated with this action, and otherwise does not request reimbursement for any costs. (Teroganesyan Decls., ¶ 5; Petitions, ¶ 13, subd. (b).) 

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

Medical Bills 

Claimants have each incurred $4,091.50 in medical expenses, but Wellness Evolved Chiropractic has agreed to reduce its liens to $2,750.00 each. (Petitions, ¶ 12, subd. (b)(5); Id., Attachment, p. 23 of pdf.) 

Costs 

Claimants’ counsel is not seeking to recover costs. (Petitions, ¶ 13, subd. (b).) 

Amount to Be Paid to Claimant 

The net amount to be paid to each of the Claimants is $3,250.00. (Petitions, ¶ 15.) 

Disposition of Balance of Proceeds 

Petitioner requests that the net proceeds, $3,250.00 for each Claimant, be transferred to a custodian for the benefit of the minor under the California Uniform Transfers to Minors Act. (Petitions, ¶ 18, subd. (b)(6).) Petitioner did not provide the name and address of the proposed custodian and the money or other property to be transferred on Attachment 18b(6), as directed in the Petitions. (Id.) The Court needs more information on this, considering that it appears Petitioner is seeking to have the money made payable to her. (Proposed Orders, ¶ 8, subd. (b)(2).) 

Court Appearance 

Rule 7.952, subdivision (a), of the California Rules 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, subd. (a).) The Court finds that the appearances of the Claimants are not required due to their minor status. However, the petitioner’s attendance is required. 

Prognosis 

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

Proposed Order MC-351 

Petitioner has filed a Proposed Order Form MC-351 for each of the Claimants. 

Incomplete Forms 

The Court also notes that although the Court approved Petitioner’s applications and orders for appointment as guardian ad litem for Claimants, Petitioner did not mark the box for guardian ad litem on the Petitions. (See Petitions, ¶ 1.) Petitioner also did not mark the same box on the proposed orders. (See Proposed Orders, ¶ 2.) The Court further notes that Petitioner did not provide the judicial officer’s name on paragraph 1, subdivision (c), of the proposed orders. (See Proposed Orders, ¶ 1, subd. (c).) 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Claimants’ petitions for approval of compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for minor or person with a disability without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

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

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

The Court DENIES Claimant Emma Fuentes’ 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.