Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV00738, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 22STCV00738    Hearing Date: April 3, 2024    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Stephanie Marie Wickstrom, et al.,

 

 

 

Plaintiffs,

 

Case No.:

 

 

22STCV00738

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

Southern California Edison Company, et al.,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: April 3, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Petitions for Minor’s Compromise

Moving Party: Minor Plaintiffs

Responding Party: None

 

T/R:     THE PETITIONS ARE GRANTED.

 

PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

 

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

 

Compromises of disputed claims brought by minors are governed in part by CCP § 372. The statute allows a guardian ad litem to appear in court on behalf of a minor claimant and gives the guardian ad litem the power to compromise the minor’s claim “with the approval of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending.”  A petition for court approval of a compromise must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise or covenant.  (CRC Rule 7.950.)

 

CRC Rule 7.952(a) requires the attendance of the petitioner and claimant at the hearing on the compromise of the claim unless the court for good causes dispenses with their personal appearance.

 

“Neither section 372 nor the California Rules of Court (rules 7.950 & 7.952) contemplates a noticed motion and adversary hearing when court approval of a minor's compromise is sought. Although we need not decide the question, it would appear that a petition to approve or disapprove a minor's compromise may be decided by the superior court, ex parte, in chambers.”  (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1337.) 

 

Petitioners seek court approval for a settlement from Defendants Southern California Edison Company and New Legend, Inc., under which the two minor claimants would receive 20% of the total settlement. 33% in attorneys’ fees and 20% of total advanced costs will be deducted from the minor claimants’ settlement amounts. The settlement funds will be placed in a deferred annuity.

 

This is a wrongful death action. The individual settlements are fair in light of the alleged injuries sustained by claimants. The attorney’s fees and costs are reasonable.

 

The petitions are GRANTED.