Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV01682, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV01682, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV01682 Hearing Date: July 2, 2024 Dept: G

Petitioner Tawney Alonso’s Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Plaintiff Kaitlyn Alcala, a Minor

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Tawney Alonso’s Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Plaintiff Kaitlyn Alcala, a Minor is CONTINUED to a date to be determined in Department G (Pomona).

The Court further orders Plaintiff Kaitlyn Alcala’s counsel to file a supplemental declaration in support of the request for attorney fees no later than nine (9) court days before the hearing scheduled in Department G.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. In June 2021, Plaintiffs Taide Alarcon Alonso and Kaitlyn Alcala were involved in a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Linda Rodriguez at the intersection of Garey Avenue and East Mission Boulevard in Pomona.

On June 5, 2023, Alcala, through guardian ad litem Tawny Alonso, and Alarcon Alonso filed a complaint against Rodriguez and Does 1-25, alleging a single cause of action for motor vehicle negligence.

On October 17, 2023, Alarcon Alonso and Alcala filed a notice of conditional settlement. On June 26, 2024, Alonso filed the present petition on Alcala’s behalf. A hearing on the present petition is set for July 2, 2024, along with an OSC Re: Dismissal.

ANALYSIS

Alonso petitions for the Court’s approval of a $19,999.99 settlement reached between Alcala and Rodriguez. For the following reasons, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the petition.

Legal Standard

An enforceable settlement of a minor’s or incompetent’s claim can only be consummated with court approval. (Prob. Code, §§ 2504, 3500, 3600 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) For this purpose, a petition for approval must be presented to the court and until it is granted, there is no final settlement. (Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1603-1606.) Any settlement agreement therefore is voidable by the minor’s guardian ad litem. (Id., at p. 1606.)

Probate Code section 3600, et seq., governs how the settlement proceeds are to be paid. Pursuant to Probate Code section 3601, the order shall approve payment of reasonable expenses from the settlement as follows:

The court making the order or giving the judgment referred to in Section 3600, as a part thereof, shall make a further order authorizing and directing that such reasonable expenses (medical or otherwise and including reimbursement to a parent, guardian, or conservator), costs, and attorney’s fees, as the court shall approve and allow therein, shall be paid from the money or other property to be paid or delivered for the benefit of the minor or incompetent person. (Prob. Code, § 3601, subd. (a).)

In cases pursuant to Probate Code section 3601, “unless the court has approved the fee agreement in advance, the court must use a reasonable fee standard when approving and allowing the amount of attorney’s fees payable from money or property paid or to be paid for the benefit of a minor or a person with a disability.” (Cal. Rules of Court 7.955, subd. (a)(1).) In doing so, “[t]he court must give consideration to the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement was made, except where the attorney and the representative of the minor or person with a disability contemplated that the attorney's fee would be affected by later events.” (Cal. Rules of Court 7.955, subd. (a)(2).

Discussion

Pursuant to the settlement agreement reached between the parties, Rodriguez agrees to pay a total of $19,999.99 to Alcala. (Petition, ¶ 10.)

With regards to attorney fees, a retainer agreement is attached to the Petition as Attachment 17a. In it, the attorney fees for Alcala will be 40% of the gross recovery if the matter is resolved following the filing of a lawsuit. (Attach. 17a, ¶ 6.) Here, Alcala’s counsel requests $6,666.66 in attorney fees which is only 33.33% of Alcala’s total recovery. (Petition, ¶ 13.) But counsel does not provide any declarations to support this request for fees and does not provide an itemization or estimate of the total hours worked.

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on Alonso’s application to a date to be determined in Department G (Pomona) and orders Alcala’s counsel to file a supplemental declaration in support of the request for attorney fees no later than nine (9) court days before the hearing scheduled in Department G.