Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV00653, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00653    Hearing Date: August 31, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

            On January 7, 2021, Plaintiffs Michael Madison, an individual; Latraina King, an individual; Korea Sue Madison, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem Michael Madison; Gabrielle King, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem Michael Madison; and Michael Rain Madison, minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem Michael Madison (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed the instant action against Defendants Bruce Tidwell and Bridie Tidwell.

The parties have reached a settlement in this matter, and Michael Madison as Petitioner for Claimant Korea Sue Madison (“Claimant”) now petitions for the Court’s approval of the settlement on behalf of Claimant.

            Discussion

An enforceable settlement of a minor’s claim can only be consummated with court approval. (Prob. Code, § 3500.) The petition must be verified by the petitioner, must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, and must be prepared on judicial council form MC-350. (CRC 7.950.)

Here, the petition is prepared on form MC-350 and is verified by the Petitioner. The Court finds that the settlement appears fair and reasonable and in the best interests of Claimant.

However, the Court notes that Item 17(f) of the petition indicates that the attorney who has represented or assisted petitioner “does not” “expect to receive attorney’s fees or other compensation in addition to that requested in this petition for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to this petition.” However, Item 17(f) then lists an amount of fees to be paid by “Michael Madison/LaTraina King” upon settlement. Thus, it appears Petitioner should have checked the box “does” after Item 17(f).

            In addition, Item 1(c) of the proposed order (Form MC-351) lists the incorrect Judicial Officer.

            Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court intends to grant the petition and approve the compromise, subject to Petitioner filing a corrected petition prior to the hearing that corrects the defect in Item 17 identified above, and subject to Plaintiffs’ examination of Petitioner at the hearing. The Court will correct the reference to the judicial officer in the Proposed Order.

Petitioner is to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  August 31, 2022                             ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court