Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 23STCV18378, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

JAVIER SOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CCV PARTNERSHIP II, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

23STCV18378

Hearing Date:

December 3, 2024

Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PETITIONS TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION (4)

On August 3, 2023, a number of Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant CCV Partnership II, including, inter alia, Plaintiffs Javier Soto; Fernando Soto, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Javier Soto; Stephany Soto, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Javier Soto; Miguel Soto, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem Javier Soto; and Jose Soto, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem Javier Soto.

The parties have reached a settlement in this matter. Javier Soto as Petitioner for Claimants Fernando Soto, Stephany Soto, Miguel Soto, and Jose Soto (“Petitioner”) now petitions for the Court’s approval of the settlement on behalf of the Claimants.

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 petitions are prepared on forms MC-350 and are verified by Petitioner. However, the Court notes a few defects with the petitions.

First, it appears that Item 17(e) of the petitions should have been checked “is,” as opposed to “is not.” The petitions include an Attachment 17e providing, inter alia, “[t]he firm of Friedman & Chapman LLP represents all of the plaintiffs in this matter including the petitioners who are the guardian ad litems for all minors in this matter.”

Second, Item 18(b)(6) of the petitions is checked and provides that $7,413.74 is to “be transferred to a custodian for the benefit of the minor under the California Uniform Transfers to Minors Act. The name and address of the proposed custodian and the money or other property to be transferred are specified in Attachment 18b(6).” However, the petitions include an “Attachment 18(b)(2).” (Emphasis added.) In addition, the “Attachment 18(b)(2)” does not list “the money or other property to be transferred.” (Petition, Item 18(b)(6).)

Third, Item 11(b)(3) of the petitions provides that Petitioner is a plaintiff in the same action with the Claimants. Item (b)(3) further provides, “[i]f you answered ‘is,’ explain in Attachment 11b(3) the circumstances and the effect your claim and its disposition has on the proposed compromise of the claim or action described in this petition.” However, it does not appear that any Attachment 11b(3) was provided with the petitions. In addition, Item 11(b)(6) of the petitions provides, “[r]easons for the apportionment of the settlement payments between the claimant and each other plaintiff or claimant named above are specified in Attachment 11b(6).” However, it does not appear that any Attachment 11b(6) was provided.

Fourth, Item 8(a)(1) of the proposed orders (Form MC-351) for each of the petitions does not specify who the attorney’s fees are payable to.

Fifth, Item 9(c)(2) of each of the proposed orders is checked, and Item 9(c) provides that “[t]he balance of the proceeds of the settlement or judgment deposited in a blocked account or accounts under item 8b(1) may be withdrawn only as follows (check (1) or (2))…” However, Item 8(b)(1) of the proposed orders is not checked, and the proposed orders do not appear to specify that the balance of the proceeds of the settlement are to be deposited in a blocked account. In addition, Item 9(c)(2) of the proposed order pertaining to Fernando Soto does not specify Fernando Soto’s birthdate.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50