Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV11890, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11890    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs Santiago Ramirez, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Martha Ramirez Moreno; and Martha Ramirez Moreno (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on May 25, 2023 against Defendants CHA Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center and Arus Zograbyan, M.D. The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) general negligence and (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

The parties have reached a settlement in this matter.

Martha Ramirez Moreno as Petitioner for Claimant Santiago Ramirez (“Petitioner”) now petitions for the Court’s approval of the settlement on behalf of the Claimant. 

            Discussion

An enforceable settlement of a minor’s claim can only be consummated with court approval. ((Prob. Code, § 3500.) “A petition for court approval of a compromise of, or a covenant not to sue or enforce judgment, on a minor’s disputed claim; a compromise or settlement of a pending action or proceeding to which a minor or person with a disability is a party; or the disposition of the proceeds of a judgment for a minor or person with a disability under Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600-3613 or Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition. Except as provided in rule 7.950.5, the petition must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).” (California Rules of Court, rule 7.950, emphasis in original.)  

Here, the petition is prepared on form MC-350 and is verified by Petitioner. However, the Court notes a few defects with the petition.

First, in Item 17(c) of the petition (form MC-350), Petitioner checked both “has not” and “has” regarding whether the attorney received attorney’s fees or other compensation in addition to that requested in the petition for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition.

Second, Items 5 and 6 of the proposed order (Form MC-351) are blank.

Third, it appears that Item 8(a)(3)(a) of the proposed order should refer to “Department of Health Care Services,” not “Department of Health Care Service.” (Emphasis added.)

Fourth, Attachment 8b(2) of the proposed order provides, inter alia, that “[a]ll sums constitute damages on account of personal injuries arising from an occurrence within the meaning of Section 104(a)(2).” It is unclear what specific Code section “Section 104(a)(2)” refers to.

            Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, the Court intends to grant the petition and approve the compromise, subject to Petitioner correcting the foregoing defects, and subject to Plaintiffs’ examination of Petitioner at the hearing.

///

///

Petitioner is to give notice of this ruling.  

DATED:  December 6, 2024                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court