Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV03020, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV03020    Hearing Date: April 21, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Raul Sanchez, et al. v. BKL Builders Corporation, et al. 

Zulma Ortiz’s Petition for Minor’s Compromise for Claimant Yareli Sanchez 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES the expedited petition for minor’s compromise without prejudice. The Court directs Petitioner to submit a corrected petition addressing the defects identified herein. 

Petitioner is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days of the Court’s order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is an auto accident case. On September 10, 2024, plaintiffs Raul Sanchez, Zulma Ortez (Petitioner), and Yareli Sanchez (Claimant) (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed this action against defendants BKL Builders Corporation, Brando Kory Lee (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 20, alleging one cause of action for motor vehicle. On September 10, 2024, the Court approved Petitioner’s application and order for appointment as guardian ad litem for Claimant. 

On March 6, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement. On April 17, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for expedited approval of compromise of claim or action or disposition of proceeds of judgment for minor or person with a disability. 

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-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 7.950.5.) 

Settlement 

Claimant has agreed to settle Claimant’s claims with Defendants for $19,999.00. If approved, $4,999.75 will be paid in attorney fees, $435.00 will be paid for reimbursement of litigation costs, and $6,550.00 will be paid for medical expenses, leaving a balance of $8,014.25 for Claimant. Petitioner, as Claimant’s guardian, requests authority to deposit or invest the balance in one or more insured accounts with financial institutions in California or with a trust company, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court. 

Court approval is required for all settlements of a person with a disability. (Probate Code, §§ 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) The Court has reviewed the proposed settlement and finds the Petition needs clarification regarding the medical expenses incurred. The Court otherwise 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. 

Attorney's Fees 

The retained attorney’s information has been disclosed as required by Rule 7.951 of the California Rules of Court. (Petition, ¶ 14, subd. (a).) A copy of the agreement was submitted with the Petition as strictly required by Rule 7.951, subdivision (6), of the California Rules of Court. (Petition, ¶ 14, subd. (a), Attach. 14a.) 

Petitioner’s counsel is seeking to recover $4,999.75 in attorney fees. (Petition, ¶ 14, subd. (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), of the California Rules of Court, which provides as follows: 

(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 

Petitioner’s counsel seeks $4,999.75 in attorney fees, based on two years of work performed. (Perez Decl.) This computes to 25% of Claimant’s settlement amount. 

Novelty and Difficulty 

Petitioner’s counsel does not indicate that this was a novel or difficult case. (Perez Decl.) 

Amount Involved and Results Obtained 

Petitioner’s counsel seeks $4,999.75 in attorney fees, based on two years of work performed. (Perez Decl.) 

Nature and Length of Professional Relationship 

Petitioner’s counsel indicates having represented the Plaintiffs for two years in this action. (Perez Decl.) 

Experience, Reputation, and Ability of Counsel 

Petitioner’s counsel’s declaration does not address this factor. (Perez Decl.) 

Time and Labor Required 

Petitioner’s counsel indicates having worked on this matter for two years and having directed all issues relating to property damage, medical treatment, negotiations, and the filing of this litigation and minor’s compromise. (Perez Decl.) 

Acceptance of Case Precluding Other Employment 

Petitioner’s counsel’s declaration does not address this factor. (Perez Decl.) 

Contingent Fee 

Petitioner’s counsel seeks $4,999.75 in attorney fees, which computes to 25% of Claimant’s settlement amount. (Perez Decl.) 

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

Medical Bills 

The Court finds Claimant’s medical expense calculations here to be somewhat confusing. The Petition indicates Claimant’s $18,370.51 in total medical expenses, $2,380.51 in medical expenses paid, $11,820.51 in reductions, $0.00 in medical expenses to be reimbursed from the settlement proceeds, and $18,370.51 in total statutory or contractual liens. (Petition, ¶ 13, subd. (a).) But, paragraph 13, subdivision (f)(2) indicates $6,550.00 in liens, which amount is then repeated in paragraph 17, subdivision (b), of the Petition as the amount of medical expenses to be paid from the settlement proceeds. (Petition, ¶¶ 13, subd. (f)(2), 17, subd. (b).) Petitioner needs to correct these discrepancies. 

Costs 

Petitioner’s counsel seeks $435.00 in reimbursement of costs. (Petition, ¶ 14, subd. (b).) 

Amount to Be Paid to Claimant 

The net amount to be paid to Claimant is $8,014.25. (Petition, ¶ 17, subd. (f).) 

Disposition of Balance of Proceeds 

Petitioner indicates that she is the guardian of Claimant’s estate, and requests authority to deposit the net proceeds, $8,014.25, in one or more insured financial institutions in this state, specifically Bank of America, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court. (Petition, ¶ 19, subd. (a)(2), Attach. 19a(2).) 

Prognosis 

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

Court Appearance 

Rule 7.952 of the California Rules of Court requires the Petitioner and Claimant to attend 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 Claimant’s minority status. But, the Court still requires Petitioner to appear. 

Other Issues 

Petitioner did not tick the box for paragraph 12, subdivision (b)(2), which indicates whether Petitioner would receive money under the proposed settlement. (Petition, ¶ 12, subd. (b)(2).) Given the Petition lists Petitioner as receiving $25,000.00 from the settlement proceeds, that box should have been ticked. (Petition, ¶ 12, subd. (b)(3).) 

Proposed Order MC-351 

Petitioner has filed a Proposed Order Form MC-351 for Claimant. The Court notes, however, that the list of providers to be paid mentions “Kaiser Perm./Rawlings,” but it does not list the amount to be paid. (Proposed Order (MC-351), Attach. 8a(3).) The Court also notes that there is no proof of service of the Petition on the other parties in this action, but Petitioner indicates having given notice as required by law. (Proposed Order (MC-351), ¶ 5.) 

Proposed Order MC-355 

Petitioner did not tick the box for “parent” for paragraph 3 of the proposed Order to Deposit Funds in Blocked Account. (Proposed Order (MC-355), ¶ 3.) 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the expedited petition for minor’s compromise without prejudice. The Court directs Petitioner to submit a corrected petition addressing the defects identified herein. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES the expedited petition for minor’s compromise without prejudice. The Court directs Petitioner to submit a corrected petition addressing the defects identified herein. 

Petitioner is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days of the Court’s order.