Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 21AVCV00671, Date: 2022-12-07 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: 21AVCV00671    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: A14

Background

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about October 06, 2020 near the intersection of Rancho Vista Blvd. and 10th St. West. Plaintiff Danielle C. Machuca Santos, by and through her Guardian ad Litem America Machuca (“Minor Claimant”), was a passenger in a vehicle that was allegedly rear-ended by Defendant Jordan Charles Haynes (“Defendant”).

On January 15, 2021, Plaintiffs Gael Duran Santos, America Machuca, and Minor Claimant filed their Complaint alleging two causes of action for (1) Negligence and (2) Negligence Per Se.

On November 09, 2022, Petitioner America Machuca (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to approve the compromise of pending action on behalf of 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 petition shows that Minor Claimant settled with Defendant for total amounts of $16,000.00. There appears to be an error in the petition regarding medical expenses:

• No. 13(a)(1) states that the total amount of medical expenses before any reductions is $4,285.90;

• No. 13(a)(3) states that the total of negotiated, contractual or statutory reductions is $1,000.00; and

• No. 12(a)(4) states that the total amount of medical expenses to be paid or reimbursed from the proceeds is $1,000.00.

The $1,000.00 total amount of medical expenses is also used in No. 17 “Summary” to calculate Minor Claimant’s balance of proceeds.

The Court has looked at the attachments for clarity. Attachment 13a, Exh. A seems to evidence a reduction totaling $1,000.00, not a total of amount of medical expenses.

Should the reduction be $1,000.00, that leaves a total amount of  $3,285.90 in medical expenses to be paid from the proceeds.

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.

Conclusion