Judge Stephen Morgan, Case 21AVCV00894 2022-12-29 Tentative Ruling

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about December 05, 2019. Minor plaintiffs Dulce Herrera (“Dulce”)[1], Ruby Herrera (“Ruby), and Angel Zarate (“Zarate” and collectively “Minor Claimants”) were passengers in a vehicle driven by their mother, Plaintiff Amada Amanda Gomez (with minor claimants “Plaintiffs”), that was struck by the vehicle allegedly driven and/or owned by Defendants Richard Conti (“Conti”) and Cynthia Gayle Buckley (“Buckley” and collectively “Defendants”).

On November 05, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging two causes of action for: Motor Vehicle and General Negligence.

On October 25, 2022, Petitioner Amada Amanda Gomez (“Petitioner”) filed petitions to approve the compromise of pending action on behalf of Ruby and Zarate.

On December 02, 2022, the Court inquired as to why no petition was submitted for Dulce. Counsel presented that Dulce is now 18 years of age and no longer a minor. The Court granted the petition to approve the compromise of pending action on behalf of Zarate and denied the petition on behalf of Ruby due to the errors contained within the petition.

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 Ruby settled with Defendants for an amount $5,000.00. With respect to Ruby, it is presented that $1,400.00 will be used to pay medical expenses, $1,250.00 will be used to pay attorney’s fees, and $398.00 will be used to pay non-medical expenses, leaving a balance of $1,952.00 for Ruby.

The requested attorney’s, which fees constitute 25% of the gross settlement, are reasonable.

[1] Minor plaintiffs Dulce Herrera and Ruby Herrera share the same surname. The Court addresses each by their first name for the purpose of clarity. No disrespect is meant.