Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Plaintiff Daniel Corona, a minor through his mother and guardian ad litem Rebecca Gutierrez, (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against his mother’s prenatal health care provider Dr. Kathryn Shaw (“Dr. Shaw”). Plaintiff alleged Dr. Shaw negligently failed to diagnose his serious abnormalities that were evident on his ultrasound. 

On April 19, 2018, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement. 

On April 16, 2019, Plaintiff’s petition to approve minor’s compromise was granted and the court found that the proposed $1,250,0000 settlement reasonably compensated minor Plaintiff for his claim. After deducting expenses and attorney fees, the balance of $873,504.18 was divided between a deferred annuity and an irrevocable special needs trust. (Order Approving Compromise, April 16, 2019.) Further, with the consent of Department of Health Care Services, (DHCS), $358,117.51 would be disbursed to Plaintiff’s counsel’s Client Trust Account pending determination of DHCS’ lien claim. (Ibid.) 

On July 6, 2020, DHCS provided a revised final lien letter stating that it had paid $358,061 for Plaintiff’s medical care, from which it sought to recover $229,696. 

On August 10, 2020, Judge Draper granted DHCS’ Medi-Cal Lien in the amount of $229,696. Plaintiff timely appealed, and the Court of Appeal found that the court erred by failing to equitably allocate the settlement amount. 

On November 29, 2023, Judge Feeney ruled that DHCS was to recover on its lien in the amount of $23,204.70. 

On June 12, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the instant motion seeks approval for disbursement of minor Plaintiff’s funds in the amount of $30,973.80 for attorneys’ fees and $1,499.61 for costs advanced arising from the determination of DHCS’ lien, and pursuant to the retainer agreement between Plaintiff and his counsel. 

 

II. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff’s counsel avers that Plaintiff previously paid to DHCS $229,696 as determined by Judge Draper. After Judge Feeney determined that DHCS was entitled to collect $23,204.70 for its lien claim, the court ordered DHCS to issue a refund to Plaintiff in the amount of $206,492.03. DHCS paid the refund on February 14, 2024 via a check made payable to Plaintiff’s counsel’s Client Trust Account. Plaintiff’s counsel declares he distributed $174,018.62 to Plaintiff’s Special Needs Trust, and held the remaining $32,473.41 in the Client Trust Account pending approval of distribution to Plaintiff’s counsel for fees and costs advanced. 

Attorneys’ fees are allowed as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc, § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B).) Here, Plaintiff’s counsel attests that he and Plaintiff have a contingency fee agreement ,which specifies that Plaintiff’s counsel is to receive 15% in fees of any reduction of DHCS’ lien claim, and that Plaintiff’s counsel would be reimbursed for any costs advanced on Plaintiff’s behalf. (Mot. Exh. 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel avers 15% of $206,492.03 equates to $30,973.80, and that the receipts demonstrate costs advanced of $1,499.61 (Mot. Exh. 4) for filing fees and transaction costs incurred for filing the appeal and documents with the superior court. 

The Court has reviewed the “Retainer Agreement – Contingency Fee Contract” and finds that Plaintiff’s counsel has demonstrated that he is entitled to attorneys’ fees arising from settlement/determination of the DHCS lien by contractual agreement with Plaintiff through his guardian ad litem. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel has supported, with evidence, the amount of costs advanced on behalf of Plaintiff. 

 

III. CONCLUSION 

The motion for attorney fees in the amount of $30,973.80 and reimbursement of costs in the amount of $1,499.61 to be distributed from the Client Trust Account to Plaintiff’s counsel is GRANTED. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: August 23, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.