Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00395, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00395    Hearing Date: September 19, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/19/22

Case #22CHCV00395

MINOR’S COMPROMISE

Petition filed on 8/11/22.

MINOR: Charlize Lee

GAL: Mary Lam (parent)

DEFENDANT: Advanced Bionics, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED: Approval of the compromise of the claim of the minor.

RULING: The petition will be granted upon Defendant Advanced Bionics payment of a first appearance fee.

This petition was filed and served on 8/11/22 for the original 8/16/22 hearing date.  Such filing and service was not timely under CCP 1005(b).  On 8/16/22, pursuant to joint motion, this Court continued the hearings on the instant petition in case number 22CHCV00395 and on untimely petitions filed in related cases 22CHCV00399, 22CHCV00403 and 22CHCV00400 to 9/19/22.  (See 8/16/22 Minute Order).  The Court further ordered that the briefing schedules are to remain as currently set as to each petition’s original hearing date.  Id.  None of the petitions in the foregoing cases were timely filed for their original hearing dates.  Regardless, the Court will consider and rule on the petitions in the foregoing cases which were filed at least 16 court days before the 9/19/22 hearing date.     

The Court notes that the most recent cases filed by Plaintiff’s counsel on behalf of several different plaintiffs against Advanced Bionics, LLC were filed after each of the Plaintiff’s claims had settled.  The declarations of attorney Thomas Alch submitted in support of the Petitions to Confirm Minor’s Compromise in cases 22CHCV00395, 22CHCV00398, 22CHCV00399, 22CHCV00403 and 22CHCV00400 all state that each of the claims of the respective plaintiffs were resolved on 5/9/22 before these actions were filed in early June 2022.  (See Alch Decls. ¶9).  Additionally, Defendant Advanced Bionics has not paid first appearance fees in any of the foregoing action. 

As such, it appears that these cases should not have been filed as unlimited civil complaints as there is a procedure for settling minor’s claims when no civil action is pending.  Specifically, Los Angeles Superior Court, Local Rule 4.115(a)(1) provides that “[i]f no civil action is pending, the settlement must be approved by the probate court as provided in Probate Code sections 2505(b) and 3500.”

Because the foregoing cases have already been filed and are currently pending in this department, Department F47 will rule on the pending petitions.  The Court notes that even if the settlements in these cases had occurred after the cases had been filed, and in any future similar cases filed by different plaintiffs against Advanced Bionics, this Court determines that such cases will not be related as they are not likely to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.  (See Notices of Related Cases; CRC 3.300(a)(4)).  As noted above, it appears that plaintiffs’ counsel is merely filing the actions to obtain court approval of the settlements on behalf of the minor plaintiffs.  Regardless of which department future cases are assigned to, separate rulings must be made on each application and petition filed by each plaintiff (i.e., each petition for approval of compromise of claim in each case must be separately reviewed).  Additionally, where cases/settlements involve Special Needs Trusts, the matters must each be referred to the Probate Department for separate review.  See LASC Local Rule 4.115(c).  As such, the judicial resources expended on each case is not substantially duplicative and the Court finds no benefit in relating the cases.