Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV01577, Date: 2025-04-30 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: 24PSCV01577 Hearing Date: April 30, 2025 Dept: G
Petitioner London Fay Tipton’s Petition
for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of
Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability
Respondent: NO
OPPOSITION
TENTATIVE RULING
Petitioner London
Fay Tipton’s Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or
Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability for Claimant Ryleigh Kai Dungey, a Minor is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
This is a personal
injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. On May 16, 2022, plaintiffs
London Laumont Dungey and London Fay Tipton (collectively, Plaintiffs) allege
they were stopped in Lane #2 of the I-10 Freeway when defendant Varuzh Khachatryan
rear-ended Plaintiffs.
On May 16, 2024,
Plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants Varuzh Khachatryan,
Hilda Adamian (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1
through 50, alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2)
general negligence.
On August 6,
2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement of the entire case.
On April 1, 2025,
London Fay Tipton filed this present petition.
A hearing on the petition is set for April 30, 2025, along with an order to
show cause re: dismissal (settlement).
ANALYSIS
Petitioner London
Fay Tipton (Petitioner) petitions for the court’s
approval of a $40,000 settlement reached between claimant Ryleigh Kai Dungey
(Claimant) and Defendants. For the
following reason, the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the hearing on the
present 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. Under
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, rule 7.955(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, rule 7.955(a)(2).)
Discussion
The court denies the petition
for approval of a minor’s compromise because Claimant is not a party to this
action. (Compl., ¶ 1.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 367,
“Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest,
except as otherwise provided by statute.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 367.) Because Claimant is not a plaintiff, the court must deny
the petition until Plaintiffs file an amended complaint or submit a joint
stipulation naming Claimant as a plaintiff.
In addition, if Claimant is added as a Plaintiff, Claimant must have a
guardian ad litem appointed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, §372.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s petition
for approval of a minor’s compromise is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.