Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV11490, Date: 2025-05-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11490    Hearing Date: May 12, 2025    Dept: 29

Canela-Vela v. Mannings’ Beef, LLC
22STCV11490
Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise for Claimants Jose Manuel Urista Canela (Age 6) and Maria Alejandra Urista Canela (Age 6).

Tentative 

The Court excuses the personal appearance of the claimant and the guardian ad litem. Counsel may appear by telephone or video conference call.   

The Court will call this matter. 

There are four Plaintiffs in this matter: two adults and two minor children.  The adults are Maria Reyes Canela-Vela and Jose Manuel Urista Flores.  The children are Maria Alejandra Urista Canela and Jose Manuel Urista Canela.  

On March 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement of entire case. 

On September 18, 2024, the Court (Hwang, J.) granted Plaintiffs’ application to seal portions of the petitions to approve the minors’ compromises. 

On September 30, 2024, Petitioner filed two petitions for approval of minors’ compromises; redacted versions were placed in the public record, and the unredacted versions were transmitted to the Court. 

On October 21 and 25, 2024, the Court denied the petitions without prejudice.  The Minute Orders identify a number of issues that needed to be addressed. 

On December 9, 2024, Department 32 closed, and this case was transferred to Department 29. 

On April 21, 2025, Petitioner filed two amended petitions for approval of minors’ compromises.  The petition for Maria Alejandra Urista Canela was filed with redactions.  The petition for Jose Manuel Urista Canela was not.  Both proposed orders were submitted with redactions. 

On April 22, 2025, Petitioner filed a “Notice of Errata Correcting Under Seal Filing of Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise for Jose Manuel Urista Canela.”  

The Court will call this matter and address with counsel on a number of issues. 

First, the Court has not received, and therefore has not been able to review, unredacted versions of the petitions and orders. 

Second, is there a court order permitting the petitions and orders submitted on April 21, 2025, to be filed under seal?  Was Judge Hwang’s order of September 18, 2024, specific to the September 2024 filings or was it a more general authorization to file subsequent petitions and orders under seal? 

Third, the Court does not see an Attachment 11b(6) setting forth the reasons for the apportionment of the settlement payments among the plaintiffs.  (The Court notes that the declaration of counsel indicates that during the incident, all four plaintiffs were injured, “with the minor Plaintiffs sustaining the more severe injuries.”  [Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 3.])  

Fourth, the proposed orders do not attach the terms of each proposed annuity.  That is required.

The Court will call this matter.