Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case 19CHCV00489 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 19CHCV00489, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 19CHCV00489 Hearing Date: April 6, 2023 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 4/6/23

Case #19CHCV00489

MINOR’S COMPROMISE

Petition filed on 3/30/23.

MINOR: Christopher Gutierrez

GAL: Luz Gutierrez (parent)

DEFENDANTS: Parkville LLC and Chatsworth Garden Apartments LLC

SUMMARY OF ACTION: This action arises out minor’s exposure to mold and vermin infestation in the property occupied by minor and his family. As a result of the exposure, minor allegedly suffered health problems and allergic reactions. Minor received treatment for bug bites and allergies. Minor has completely recovered from the effects of the injuries.

AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $10,000.00 with $5,000.00 to be paid by Parkville LLC and $5,000 to be paid by Chatsworth Garden Apartments LLC

ATTORNEY FEES: $0

MEDICAL EXPENSES: $0

COSTS: $0

AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO MINOR: $10,000.00

RULING: The petition is denied without prejudice.

This is the FIFTH time Plaintiffs’ counsel has submitted a defective petition for approval of the minor’s claim. On 3/8/22, an expedited petition for approval was filed and rejected on 3/14/22. On 4/6/22, a petition for approval was filed which was set for hearing on 5/19/22. On 5/19/22, the hearing was continued to 7/21/22 due to several defects. (See 5/19/22 Minute Order). On 7/21/22, because a petition correcting the defects noted in the Court’s 5/19/22 ruling had not been timely filed, the Court continued the hearing to 9/15/22. On 7/20/22, another petition was filed which was again denied without prejudice due to numerous defects on 9/15/22. (See 9/15/22 Minute Order). The Court further noted in its 9/15/22 ruling that “[i]f Plaintiff’s counsel continues to file defective petitions, the Court will consider setting an Order to Show Cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel Joseph W. Kellener for his repeated failure to comply with applicable rules regarding the filing and approval of such a petition. See California Rules of Court, Rule 2.30.” (See 9/15/22 Minute Order, p.2). The Court then reserved 10/18/22 for hearing on a new petition. Id.

Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to file a new petition for the 10/18/22 hearing date; therefore, the matter was continued to 1/26/23. (See 10/18/22). Despite Plaintiffs’ counsel’s representation on 10/18/22 that he was in the process of preparing the petition and would be filing it soon, Plaintiff’s counsel did not file a new petition until 1/25/23 at 3:24 p.m. for the 1/26/23 hearing date. (See 10/18/22 Minute Order; Petition filed on 1/25/23). As a result, the hearing on the petition was rescheduled by the Court for 2/28/23. (See 1/26/23 Minute Order). The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file a supplemental declaration regarding the issue of the $10,000.00 allocation to the minor child which was discussed at the 1/26/23 hearing. Id. Despite such order, no supplemental declaration was filed for the 2/28/23 hearing.

Rather, a new petition was filed on 1/25/23 for the 2/28/23 hearing date. However, that petition also suffered from various defects. (See 2/28/23 Minute Order). As a result, the petition was denied without prejudice and 4/6/23 was reserved for a hearing on Plaintiff’s petition to approve compromise of minor’s claim. (Id., p.3). The Court specifically reminded Plaintiffs’ counsel that “any new petition must be filed and served at least 16 court days before the hearing date on the petition.” Id. Despite the foregoing, a petition for the 4/6/23 hearing date was not filed until 3/30/23, only 4 court days before the hearing date. Additionally, no proof of service for the petition has been filed. The supplemental declaration referred to in the Court’s 1/26/23 Minute Order has still not been filed.

The late-filed petition for the 4/6/23 hearing is further defective as follows:

(1) The petition is missing page 2.

(2) Number 17.e. incorrectly states that the attorney is not representing any other party involved in the matter when the attorney represents the other plaintiffs.

(3) Attachment 11 sets forth the amount of settlement for the minor and which defendants are paying it. However, pursuant to number 11.b.(3), Attachment 11(b)(3) is to explain the circumstances and effect the petitioner’s (mother/GAL) claim has on the proposed compromise of the claimed described in the petition which has not been done.

(4) Disposition of balance for claimant is unclear. Petition indicates that there is no guardianship of the estate of the minor and requests that a guardian of the estate of the minor be appointed. (See Petition, no.18.b.(1) and Attachment 18(b)). It appears that Petitioner would have to file a separate case (possibly in the Probate Dept.) for such appointment. (See Petition, No.18.a. which asks for the name of the court and case number where such guardianship was filed).

Attachment 18(b) then states that “If a protected account is necessary, Chase bank is currently asking for a court order to open such an account.” It is for petitioner and their counsel to determine how they want the proceeds disbursed and to mark the correct and corresponding boxes on the petition and submit the appropriate proposed orders (i.e., mark no.18.b.(2) if they want the funds deposited in a blocked account and submit the corresponding orders for such deposit). The proposed order indicates that the funds are to be deposited in a blocked account. (See proposed Order no.8.b.(1)).

ONCE AGAIN, PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL IS ADVISED THAT ANY NEW PETITION MUST BE FILED AND SERVED AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING DATE ON THE PETITION. IF A NEW PETITION IS NOT SO TIMELY FILED IT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AND A NEW DATE WILL HAVE TO BE RESERVED BY COUNSEL.