Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV01727, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV01727    Hearing Date: June 12, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 6/12/24

Case #24CHCV01727

2 MINORS’ COMPROMISE PETITIONS

Petitions filed on 5/17/24.

MINOR # 1: Tatiana Patino

MINOR # 2: Stephanie Patino

GAL: Juliana Carillo (parent)

DEFENDANTS: Jack Yacovone and John Yacovone

SUMMARY OF FACTS: This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on 9/19/20 in Santa Clarita, California.  Minors Tatiana Patino (Tatiana) and Stephanie Patino (Stephanie) were passengers in one of the vehicles involved in the collision, along with others, including their mother and guardian ad litem, Juliana Carillo. 

Tatiana suffered trauma, whiplash and jolting.  Tatiana received emergency services and examinations.  Tatiana has completely recovered from her injuries.

Stephanie suffered chest pain, abdominal sprain, strain, pelvis sprain/pain and pelvis fracture.  Stephanie received emergency services, examination, medication administration, x-rays and orthopedic specialist visits.  Stephanie has completely recovered from her injuries.

SETTLEMENT: Defendants Jack Yacovone and John Yacovone have agreed to pay Tatiana  $4,999.99 and Stephanie $200,000.00.

MEDICAL EXPENSES:

TATIANA: $1,207.96 (total); $233.72 (paid); $876.48 (reduction); $331.48 (to be paid from settlement)

STEPHANIE: $248,421.93 (total); $86,374.41 (paid); $179,494.78 (reduction); $68,967.15 (to be paid from settlement)

ATTORNEY’S FEES: $1,666.66 from Tatiana’s settlement; $50,000.00 from Stephanie’s settlement.

COSTS: $386.10 from Tatiana’s settlement; $1,454.05 from Stephanie’s settlement

AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO MINOR: $2,615.75 to be deposited in an insured, blocked account for Tatiana; $79,578.80 to be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity for Stephanie.

RULING: The petitions are denied.

On 5/6/24, Plaintiffs Stephanie Patino (Stephanie), a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Juliana Carrillo, and Tatiana Patino (Tatiana), a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Juliana Carrillo, filed this action against Defendants Jack Thomas Yacovone and John A. Yacovone (Defendants) alleging one cause of action for negligence.  No proof of service on Defendants for the summons and complaint has been filed and Defendants have not appeared in this action.

On 5/17/24, only 11 days after the action was filed, using the same reservation number, Plaintiffs filed two petitions to approve the compromise of the claims of the minors.  No proofs of service for the petitions have been filed.

The petitions were signed by the petitioner, the minors’ mother and guardian ad litem, on 4/3/24, more than a month before this action was filed.  (See Petitions, p.10).  Additionally, the petitions indicate that several other individuals involved in the accident, including the minors’ mother and guardian ad litem, who are not parties to this action, are also receiving substantial settlement funds from Defendants as a result of the accident.  The petitions incorrectly indicate that the petitioner, the minors’ mother and guardian ad litem, is a plaintiff in the same action.  (See Petitions, No.11.b.(3); Complaint, generally).

Based on the foregoing, it appears that this action was filed for the sole purpose of filing the instant petitions.  However, the Los Angeles County Court Rules (LASC Local Rules), Rule 4.115(a) provides that the proper court to approve a settlement where no action is pending the probate court, as provided in Probate Code 2505(b) and 3500.  As such, minors’ counsel should have sought approval of the settlements of the minors’ claims in the probate court rather than file this civil action which was settled before it was filed.      

Even if this Court was the proper Court for seeking approval of the settlements of the minors,  the issue of lack of service of the action and petitions on Defendants would preclude the Court from approving the settlements at this time.  Additionally, if the Court were considering the petitions on their merits, the Court notes that the both petitions include costs of $65.00 for “Minors Compromise Hearing Fee” when no filing fee for such petitions is charged by the court as evidenced by the reservation receipts attached to the petitions.  (Petitions, No.13.b.).  Also, as noted above, minor’s counsel has improperly used the same reservation number for two separate petitions.  Further, the Court finds that the amount of attorneys’ fees requested from Tatiana’s settlement to be  excessive, especially considering the considerable attorneys’ fees counsel expects to receive from the other settlements arising from the same accident.  Therefore, the Court would reduce such the attorneys’ fees in relation to Tatiana to $1,250.00.