Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 24TRCV03574, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV03574, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV03574 Hearing Date: January 7, 2025 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: January 7, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV03574

CASE NAME: In the Matter of Alisson Galvez Moreno, et al. v. DOES 1-10, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Alisson Galvez Moreno, Joseph Galvez Moreno, Katherine Galvez Moreno, Samuel Galvez Moreno, and Victoria Galvez Moreno by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Erika Moreno.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company Uninsured Motorist Benefits (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION:

(1) Plaintiffs’ Petition for Minor’s Compromise for Alisson Galvez Moreno

(2) Plaintiff’s Petition for Minor’s Compromise for Joseph Galvez Moreno

(3) Plaintiff’s Petition for Minor’s Compromise for Katherine Galvez Moreno

(4) Plaintiff’s Petition for Minor’s Compromise for Samuel Galvez Moreno

(5) Plaintiff’s Petition for Minor’s Compromise for Victoria Galvez Moreno

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED.

(2) GRANTED.

(3) GRANTED.

(4) GRANTED.

(5) GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On October 25, 2024, Plaintiffs, Alisson Galvez Moreno, Joseph Galvez Moreno, Katherine Galvez Moreno, Samuel Galvez Moreno, and Victoria Galvez Moreno by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Erika Moreno (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants, DOES 1 through 10. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence. The complaint is based on the allegations that on December 6, 2020, Defendants negligently owned, operated, managed, maintained, inspected, repaired, and entrusted a vehicle so as to cause a collision with a vehicle operated by Jose Pineda (“Decedent”), leading to his death. The complaint states that due to his death, Plaintiffs have lost contributions to the family during either the life expectancy that decedent had before his death or the life expectancy of Plaintiffs. Further, Plaintiffs have lost gifts or benefits that Plaintiffs would

have expected to receive from decedent. Additionally, Plaintiffs state they have incurred funeral and burial expenses and the reasonable value of household services that decedent would have provided. Plaintiffs also allege they have lost the love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support, and the loss of decedent’s training and guidance.

On December 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed five Petitions for Minor’s Compromise for Alisson Galvez Moreno (“Alisson”), Joseph Galvez Moreno (“Joseph”), Katherine Galvez Moreno (“Katherine”), Samuel Galvez Moreno (“Samuel”), and Victoria Galvez Moreno (“Victoria”) (collectively, “Minor Plaintiffs”).

B. Procedural

On December 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability. To date, no opposition has been filed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (Prob. Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc. § 372.) “‘[W]ithout trial court approval of the proposed compromise of the ward’s claim, the settlement cannot be valid. [Citation.] [¶] Nor is the settlement binding [on the minor] until it is endorsed by the trial court.’” (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.) A minor, like Claimant, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 372, subd. (a)(1).) Alternatively, the petitioner may file a declaration demonstrating that he or she has a right to compromise the minor’s claim under Cal. Probate Code section 3500. Pursuant to California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 7.950, a petition for court approval of a compromise of a pending action for a minor “mut be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.”

Regarding the substance of the Petition, to obtain court approval of the settlement of a minor’s claims, the petitioner must file a complete and “verified petition for approval of the settlement and must disclose ‘all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise.’ [Citations.]” (Barnes v. Western Heritage Ins. Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 249, 256; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) (Italics added.)

B. Discussion

Minor Plaintiffs’ guardian ad litem, Erika Moreno, has filed five Petitions for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability. The Petitions indicates that Minor Plaintiffs’ claims are the subject of a pending action or proceeding that will be compromised or settled without a trial. Plaintiffs have included a filing of the Notice of Settlement.

The Petitions assert that all five (5) Minor Plaintiffs have recovered completely from the effects of the injuries described in item 6, and there are no permanent injuries as the claimants were not injured in the incident. It also notes that the Petitioners have made a careful and diligent and investigation into the facts and circumstances of the incident or accident in which the claimant was injured; the responsibility for the incident or accident; and the nature, extent, and seriousness of the claimant’s injuries. Petition notes that they understand that if the compromise proposed in this petition is approved by this Court and consummated, the claimant will never be able to recover any more compensation from the settling defendants even if the claimant’s injuries turn out to be more serious than they now appear.

The court notes that the five (5) petitions state that each of the Minor Plaintiffs will be paid $6,000 by Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company Uninsured Motorist Benefits, making the total amount offered by all defendants to petitioners as $24,000. None of the Minor Plaintiffs have any medical expenses. Under paragraph 13, each of the Petitions indicates that Johnson, Poulson & Coons has spent $196.20 in filing fees, motion fees, traffic collision report investigation, etc. and that from each Minor Plaintiff, the law firm is requesting $1,450.95, totaling, $1,646.15 from each Minot Plaintiff’s settlement offer. Thus, the net balance of proceeds for each of the Minor Plaintiffs would be $4,352.85 to be transferred to a custodian for the benefit of the minor under the California Uniform Transfers to Minors Act.

Attachment 18b(2) indicates that Petitioner requests that the balance of the proceeds of each Minor Plaintiffs’ settlement in the amount of $4,352.85 be deposited in an insured accounts at Wells Fargo, 10225 Riverside Dr., Toluca Lake, CA 91602.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, all three of Plaintiffs’ Petitions for Minor’s Compromise are GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to provide notice.