Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: BC679445, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC679445    Hearing Date: May 25, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

Plaintiff/Claimant Charles Peng (“Claimant”) is an adult with a disability.  Claimant has agreed to settle his claims against Defendant Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) in exchange for $750,000.00.  If approved, $1,521.69 will be used for medical expenses, $181,633.92 will be used for attorney’s fees, and $311,650.94 will be used for non-medical expenses, leaving a balance of $255,163.45.  The balance will be used to fund a special needs trust for the benefit and ongoing care of Claimant.

Now, Petitioner Ta Tsai Peng, aka Jonathan Peng, (“Petitioner”) moves for an order approving compromise of claim for Claimant as parent and conservator. 

Court approval is required for all settlements of claims by an adult with a disability.  (Probate Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc. § 372.)  As stated in Code of Civil Procedure section 372, subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3)(emphasis added):

(a)(1) When a minor, a person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions, or a person for whom a conservator has been appointed is a party, that person shall appear either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in each case.

…

(a)(3) The guardian or conservator of the estate or guardian ad litem so appearing for any minor, person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions, or person for whom a conservator has been appointed shall have power, with the approval of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, to compromise the same, to agree to the order or judgment to be entered therein for or against the ward or conservatee, and to satisfy any judgment or order in favor of the ward or conservatee or release or discharge any claim of the ward or conservatee pursuant to that compromise. …

Here, Petitioner moves for an order approving compromise of claim for Claimant as parent and conservator where the $255,163.45 settlement balance will be used to fund a special needs trust for the benefit and ongoing care of Claimant.  However, based on a review of the conservatorship order provided by Petitioner, the Court finds that Petitioner has been appointed as limited conservator of Claimant only. (Petition, Peng Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. “A.”)  Also, based on a review of the file is this action, the Court finds that there has been no appointment of a guardian ad litem for Claimant.  An appointment of either a conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem is required to proceed with this petition.  Still, the Court has reviewed the Petition MC-350, the Proposed Order MC-351, and Proof of Service and finds the following.  The proposed settlement, and the requested attorney’s fees, which amounts to approximately 41% of the total settlement, is fair and reasonable after reviewing the totality of the circumstances. The bond amount in the Proposed Order appears incorrect as it is stated as $582,000 without any basis or explanation, whereas the bond amount in the Petition is stated as $289,000 with explanation.  (Petition, Attachment 18(b)(4) p. 2; Proposed Order, Attachment 13 p. 13.)  In the Proof of Service, the date at the signature line, which is also incorporated as the date of mailing, is stated as August 17, 2023, which is a date several months in the future and, therefore, not a valid service date.

When ultimately approving the establishment or funding of a special needs trust from settlement proceeds, the court must make certain findings pursuant to Probate Code section 3604(b).  But, as stated above, the Court cannot proceed with this petition until there is an appointment of either a conservator of the estate of a guardian ad litem.  

Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on this petition to ______ at 1:30 p.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

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 sscdept31@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. 

Dated this 25^h day of May 2023