Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 25STCV03385, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

On February 6, 2025, Plaintiff Blanca Aguilar (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant William Omar Iraheta (“Defendant”) arising from a motor vehicle collision alleging a cause of action for negligence.

On April 16, 2025, the Clerk’s office, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed the entire action with prejudice.

On April 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed this Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise. No opposition or other responsive pleading has been filed.

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (Prob. Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) California Rules of Court Rule 7.950 provides that a petition “must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise.” (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) Rule 7.950 states that the Petition must be filed on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability (Form MC-350).

The petition is executed by Petitioner. The petition explains that on August 30, 2023, Plaintiff and Claimant were passengers of a vehicle that was hit by Defendant. (Id., ¶¶ 4-7.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s negligent operation of his motor vehicle caused Plaintiff and Claimant to suffer damages. (Ibid.) Claimant sustained injuries to her neck and lower back, for which she received chiropractic treatment. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.)

Petitioner seeks approval of $1,500.00 in medical expenses, $1,875.00 in attorney’s fees, and $450.00 in administration fees to be taken from Claimant’s settlement. (Id., ¶ 13-16.) The attorney’s fees requested equate to 25% of Claimant’s total recovery. The net balance of proceeds for Claimant is $3,675.00, which will be deposited in a blocked account.[1] (Id., ¶¶ 19 b(2).)

Although the settlement appears to be fair and reasonable, the court notes that Claimant is not named anywhere in Plaintiff’s complaint and, thus, not a party to this action. The minor

claimant, then, does not have a “disputed claim” for purposes of Probate Code section 3500.

Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure section 372, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that “[w]hen 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…” (emphasis added). “If the claim is the subject of pending litigation, the minor must appear in the action either by a guardian of the estate or by a guardian ad litem, and in that case the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 372… apply with respect to compromise of the claim.” (Cal. Civ. Prac. Probate and Trust Proceedings (2022) § 31:76). Here, Claimant has not appeared in this case at all, much less via a guardian of the estate or by a guardian ad litem.

Plaintiff and Petitioner must correct these procedural deficiencies before the court can consider the petition. The court also notes that Plaintiff must take the dismissal of this action into consideration when resolving these issues.

Petitioner Doris Lizeth Artica’s Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise of Pending Action [i.e., as to Katherine Ruiz Artica] is DENIED.

[1] Petitioner fails to provide the finance institution where the settlement funds will be deposited, which should be included in any subsequent petition.