Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV03819, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03819    Hearing Date: October 24, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 10/24/24

Case #23CHCV03819

MINOR’S COMPROMISE

Petition filed on 9/26/24.

MINOR: Kathaleya Quintero

GAL: Liliana Ibarra (parent)

DEFENDANT: David Marquez

SUMMARY OF ACTION: This action arises out of a dog attack.  On 5/22/22, a dog owned and controlled by Defendant David Marquez attacked the minor.  Minor received care at Valley Presbyterian Hospital after the bite and consultation from Brand Surgical Institute.  Minor has not completely recovered from the injuries as she had residual scarring from the bite.

SETTLEMENT: David Marquez to pay $100,000.00.

MEDICAL EXPENSES: $2,382.00 (total); $4.75 (paid); $1,882.00 (reduction), $1,893.25 (to be paid from settlement) $11.25 (statutory or contractual lien)

ATTORNEY FEES: $45,000.00

COSTS: $2,351.45

AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO MINOR: $52,648.55 to be deposited in a blocked account – THIS AMOUNT IS INCORRECT BASED ON THE ABOVE DEDUCTIONS.

RULING: The petition is denied without prejudice.

The petition contains the following defects which preclude approval at this time:

(1) No.1 in the petition does not set forth the name of the petitioner and does not mark the parent box in addition to the guardian ad litem box.  The application and order for appointment of guardian ad litem indicates that the guardian ad litem, Liliana Ibarra is the minor’s parent. 

(2) No.3.c. in the petition incorrectly indicates that a judgment has or will be entered in the action in the amount of $100,000.00.   

(3) No medical records/reports are attached to the petition as required in No.8 of the petition.

(4) No.11.b. in the petition incorrectly indicates that Defendant has offered to pay $100,000.00 to persons other than minor.  The minor is the only plaintiff in the action and seemingly the only person injured in the dog attack.

(5) The amount of attorney’s fees (45%) seems excessive.  Based on the minimal court filings and 90 hours claimed to have been spent on this case, the attorney is receiving $1111.11 per hour in compensation.  (See Attachment 17(a) (should be titled as Attachment 13a) - Danshard Decl. ¶¶3, 14 – pdf 16-17).  Additionally, pursuant to the attorney fee agreement, it appears that the attorney may only be entitled to 33.3% if the matter settles before trial.  (See Attachment  17a - Legal Services Agreement – Contingency Fee p.2, ¶8, pdf 19).  The copy of the agreement attached to the petition is only in Spanish.  Counsel must provide a copy of the agreement in English so that the Court can determine the terms of same. 

(6) No.15 and No.16.f. incorrectly indicate that the amount to be paid to the minor is $52,648.55.  However, after the medical expenses of $1,893.25, attorney fees of $45,000.00 and other costs of $2,351.45 are deducted from the $100,000.00 settlement, only $50,755.30 is left to be paid to the minor.

(7) No.18.a. indicates that there is a guardianship of the estate of the minor and incorrectly indicates that the guardianship of the estate of the minor was appointed in this case.  The appointment of a guardian ad litem is not the appointment of the guardianship of the estate of the minor.  Such appointment would have to occur in a separate proceeding in the Probate Department.  It appears that No.18.b.(2) would be the appropriate box to mark, unless a guardianship of the estate of the minor was appointed in a separate proceeding.  In such case, that information must be provided in No.18.a.

(8) The parent box is not marked in No.2 of the proposed Order approving the compromise (proposed Order).

(9) No.6. in the proposed Order is not completed.

(10) No.8.a.(1) in the proposed Order does not set forth to whom the attorney’s fees are payable. 

(11) No. 8.a.(3) in the proposed Order lists the amount of medical expenses to be paid from the settlement as $1,182.00 when it is actually $1,893.25.

(12) No.8.b.(1) in the proposed Order also has the incorrect amount to be paid to the minor as noted above.

(13) The proposed Order to Deposit Funds In Blocked Account has the incorrect amount after the noted deductions.