Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 20AVCV00800, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20AVCV00800    Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: A14

Background

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about March 27, 2019.  Plaintiffs Elsy Maria Chale, Vanessa Chale, and Juliet Medina (collectively “Plaintiffs”) were in a vehicle, that was struck by the vehicle allegedly driven by Defendant Janet Retzer (“Defendant”).

On November 09, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant for Negligence and Property Damage.

On December 13, 2022, Petitioner Vanessa Chale (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to approve the compromise of pending action on behalf of minor claimant Juliet Medina (collectively “Minor Claimant”).

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 Claimant settled with Defendant for $5,000.00. $1,900.00 will be used for medical expenses, $1,000.00 will be used for attorney’s fees, and $0.00 will be used for non-medical expenses, leaving a total of $2,100.00 for Minor Claimant. Petitioner proposes that the proceeds be deposited into a blocked account, subject to withdrawal only upon the authorization of the court.

On its face, the petition seems reasonable. That is, the distribution of the gross settlement for medical expenses and attorney’s fees seem fair and reasonable. However, the Court notes that the adult Plaintiffs are receiving double and triple the amount of Minor Claimant. The Court notes that, while Minor Claimant’s injuries have been extensively documented, the injuries of Elsy Maria Chale and Petitioner are not.

The Court will GRANT the petition upon filing of documentation that supports the distribution of the sums to the various Plaintiffs.

Conclusion