Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 20AVCV00484, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

                                                                           Department A14 Tentative Rulings 

If parties are satisfied with the tentative ruling, parties may submit by emailing the courtroom at ATPDeptA14@LACOURT.ORG. 

If a matter is also scheduled for a CMC, TSC, OSC, etc., an appearance is still required even if the parties are willing to submit on the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 20AVCV00484    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: A14

Background

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about May 10, 2020. Plaintiffs Luis Alexander Valenzuela, Veronica Chavez, Monica Isabella Romero Chavez, Carlos Dylan Romero Chavez, and Nelson Ariel Romero Chavez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) were conducting a left turn from Avenue K westbound, onto 5th Street southbound. Concurrently, Defendant Ashley Nicole Rodriguez (“Ashley Nicole”) was traveling eastbound along Avenue K, also approaching the intersection of Avenue K and 5th Street, when she allegedly proceeded to enter the intersection on a red light and failed to yield the right of way to the Plaintiffs, causing severe and permanent injury to Plaintiffs’ bodies and nervous systems. Plaintiffs further allege that Ashley Nicole was operating the subject vehicle with the express or implied authority and permission of Defendants Marco Rodriguez and Norma Rodriguez (collectively, with Ashley Nicole, “Defendants”).

On July 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants for Negligence and Negligence Per Se.

On September 13, 2021, Petitioner Veronica De Los Angeles Chavez De Romero (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to approve the compromise of pending action on behalf of minor claimant Carlos Dylan Romero Chavez (“Carlos”[1]).

On September 21, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition to approve the compromise of pending action on behalf of minor claimant Monica Isabella Romero Chavez (“Monica” and, collectively, “Minor Claimants”).

On October 08, 2021, the Court continued the hearing from November 22, 2021 to December 08, 2021.

On December 06, 2021, the Court continued the hearing from December 08, 2021 to February 16, 2022. The Court set four Orders to Show Cause (“OSCs”) for February 16, 2022: (1) Order to Show Cause Re: Filing of Declaration Explaining Discrepancy in Settlement Amounts Between Adults and Minors, (2) Order to Show Cause Re: Submission of Petition for Minor's Compromise for Nelson Ariel Romero Chavez, (3) Order to Show Cause Re: Correction of Petition and Order from Monica Isabella Romero to Monica Isabella Romero Chavez, and (4) Order to Show Cause Re: Petition to Include Deposit in a Blocked Account for Minors.

On February 02, 2022, Petitioner filed Petitions for Monica and Nelson Ariel Romero Chavez (“Nelson”).

On February 16, 2022, a hearing on the matter was held. The Court discharged the Order to Show Cause Hearings Re: Filing of Declaration, Submission of Petition for Nelson Ariel Romero Chavez, and Correction of Petition and Order from Monica Isabella Romero to Monica Isabella Romero Chavez. The Court inquired once again about the discrepancy in settlement amounts between the adult and minor plaintiffs. The Court continued the Order to Show Cause Re: Completion of Minor's Compromise and Order to Show Cause Re: Petition to Include Deposit in a Blocked Account for Minors to March 30, 2022. The Court set an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is scheduled for March 30, 2022.

On March 04, 2022, Petitioner attempted to file documents, but they were rejected.

On March 30, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that new orders to approve the Minor Claimants’ compromises will be submitted. Pursuant to oral stipulation, the Order to Show Cause Re: Completion of Minor's Compromise, Order to Show Cause Re: Petition to Include Deposit in a Blocked Account for Minors, and Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) were continued to June 27, 2022.

On June 27, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the matter. No new filings were submitted. Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that he was able to receive additional settlement funds for the Minor Claimants. Pursuant to oral stipulation, the Order to Show Cause Re: Completion of Minor's Compromise, Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement), and Order to Show Cause Re: Petition to Include Deposit in a Blocked Account for Minors scheduled for were continued to September 28, 2022.

On September 28, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the matter. Plaintiffs requested a continuance. Pursuant to the request of Plaintiffs, the Order to Show Cause Re: Completion of Minor's Compromise, Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement), and Order to Show Cause Re: Petition to Include Deposit in a Blocked Account for Minors were continued to December 07, 2022.

On December 05, 2022, Petitioner filed amended petitions for Monica, Carlos, and Nelson.

-----

Analysis

Standard for Approving Minor’s Compromises – Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim or that of a person lacking the capacity to make decisions.  (Prob. Code, §§ 2504, 3500, 3600 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; see Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337.)

“[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors, [is] a role to assure that whatever is done is in the minor’s best interests . . . .  [I]ts primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor’s injuries, care and treatment.”  (Goldberg v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.) 

A petition for court approval of a compromise or covenant not to sue under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court Rules 7.950, 7.951, and 7.952.  The petition must be verified by the petitioner and contain a full disclosure of all information that has “any bearing upon the reasonableness” of the compromise or the covenant.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)  The person compromising the claim on behalf of the minor or person who lacks capacity, and the represented person, must attend the hearing on compromise of the claim unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.952(a).)

An order for deposit of funds of a minor or person lacking decision-making capacity and a petition for the withdrawal of such funds must comply with California Rules of Court Rules 7.953 and 7.954.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1384; see also Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rules 4.115-4.118.)

-----

The petitions show that Minor Claimants Carlos, Monica, and Nelson settled with Defendants for total amounts of $5,500.00, $2,500.00, and $2,5000.00 respectively. With respect to Carlos, $495.52 will be used to pay medical expenses, $1,733.33 will be used to pay attorney’s fees, and $2.75 will be used to pay non-medical expenses, leaving a balance of $3,268.40 for Carlos. With respect to Monica, $672.94 will be used to pay medical expenses, $733.33 will be used to pay attorney’s fees, and $207.44 will be used to pay non-medical expenses, leaving a balance of $886.29 for Monica. With respect to Nelson, $176.33 will be used to pay medical expenses, $733.33 will be used to pay attorney’s fees, and $174.71 will be used to pay non-medical expenses, leaving a balance of $1,415.63 for Nelson.  

The Court is concerned with the petitions due to the following:

• Monica, who has the highest amount of medical expenses, is receiving approximately $3,000.00 less than Carlos. Additionally, it was presented that Monica had no major injuries and received no treatment in counsel Tae Kim (“Kim”)’s declaration. Instead, the petition states that Monica sustained “[m]inor sustained the following injuries: abrasions on right side of neck, abrasion to right foot, chest pain, and back pain.” (Amended Petition for Monica No. 7.) This is akin to the injuries of adult Plaintiff Luis Alexander Valenzuela (contusions, minor head injuries, and lower back strain, he also received treatment as presented by Kim), who is receiving $70,000.00 in settlement.

• Kim has increased his attorney’s fees in the petitions. It is most noticeable in Monica’s petition as her February petition shows a settlement of $2,000.00 with attorney’s fees set at $566.67 whereas her current petition shows a settlement of $2,500.00 with attorney’s fees set at $733.33. The Court does not believe that a settlement increase of $500.00 supports an attorney’s fee increase of $166.67. The Court notes that 25% of $2,500.00 is $625 and the current rate set by Kim is approximately 29.33%. The previous rate was 28.33%. The Court notes that Carlos’ petition shows an increase in attorney’s fees as well.

• All three petitions request that money be deposited not only to a blocked account, but also to the parent of the minor. However, all three petitions request that a majority of the Minor Claimants’ settlement be paid or delivered to the parent:

  • Carlos – $666.67 to the blocked account, $2,601.73 to the parent;

  • Monica – $333.34 to the blocked account, $552.95 to the parent; and

  • Nelson – $333.34 to the blocked account, $1,082.29 to the parent.

Due to these concerns, the Court does not believe the compromises to be in the best interests of Minor Claimants.

Accordingly, the Petitions are DENIED.

Conclusion

The Petitions to Approve the Compromise of Pending Action on Behalf of Minor Claimants Carlos Dylan Romero Chavez, Monica Isabella Romero, and Nelson Ariel Romero Chavez are DENIED.