Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 21AVCV00807, Date: 2023-09-26 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: 21AVCV00807    Hearing Date: September 26, 2023    Dept: A14

Background

This is a motor vehicle action. Plaintiffs Sarah B. Martinez (“Martinez”), Lucrecia Monterroso (“Monterroso”), and Devin Varner, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem Sarah B. Martinez (“Varner” and collectively “Plaintiffs”), allege that on or about October 15, 2020, Plaintiffs were proceeding in Vehicle 2 in a southernly direction on 6th Street East, at or near the intersection with Avenure R, in or near the city of Palmdale, in the County of Los Angeles, state of California when Defendants Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA) Inc. (“MSC”), Ean Holdings, Inc. (“Ean”), and Wilbert L. Bailey, Jr. (“Bailey, Jr.”) negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, drove, and operated their motor vehicle, Vehicle 1, so as to directly and proximately cause a collision with Vehicle 2. Plaintiffs further allege injuries and damages. 

On October 08, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, alleging five (5) causes of action: (1) Negligence brought by Martinez, (2) Negligent Hiring, Training, and/or Retention of Unfit Employee as to MSC and Ean, (3) Negligent Entrustment as to MSC, (4) Negligence brought by Moterroso, and (5) Negligence brought by Varner. 

On September 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) after MSC’s Demurrer was sustained with leave to amend.

On October 18, 2022, Bailey, Jr. filed his Answer.

On October 26, 2022, Bailey and Son Transport filed its Answer.

On November 01, 2022, MSC filed its Answer and a Cross-Complaint naming Bailey, Jr. and Bailey and Son Transport as Cross-Defendants.

On December 01, 2022, Bailey, Jr. and Bailey and Son Transport as Cross-Defendants filed their Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On March 30, 2023, a stipulation was filed, continuing the trial date, the final pretrial conference date, and all other dates and deadlines that correspond to such dates.

On August 18, 2023, Martinez filed petitions to approve the compromise of pending action on behalf of Varner, 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 Varner settled with Defendants Bailey, Jr. and MSC, together, for a total amount of $3,000.00. $0.00 will be used to pay medical expenses, $750.00 will be used to pay attorney’s fees, and $0.00 will be used to pay non-medical expenses, leaving a balance of $2,250.00 for Varner. Petitioner proposes the net proceeds be deposited into a blocked account on behalf of Varner.

The Court finds the settlements are fair and reasonable. The Court also finds the requested attorney’s fees, which constitute 25% of the gross settlement amount, to be reasonable.

Conclusion