Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 19STCV09008, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. R at 909-802-1117 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV09008    Hearing Date: November 7, 2022    Dept: R

Mercy Pimental, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Ariluz Reyes De Pimentel v. Alex Huerta, et al. (19STCV09008)

___________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff’s Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability

            Responding Party: Unopposed

Ruling

Plaintiff’s Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability is GRANTED.

Background

Plaintiff Mercy Pimentel (“Plaintiff”) was injured when another student pushed her from behind while Plaintiff was walking to class.

On March 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants ALEX HUERTA, an individual; AZUSA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public entity; CENTER MIDDLE SCHOOL, a public entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive for:

1.      VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 815.6

2.      NEGLIGENCE

3.      BATTERY

4.      ASSAULT and

5.      PARENTAL LIABILITY

On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed the first ‘Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability,’ which the court continued the hearing.

On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff refiled its application, along with a supplemental declaration.

Discussion

Previously, the court denied the application for the following reasons:  

First, a requirement to approve such a Petition is that there are no liens.

Here, however, Medi-Cal has agreed accept $1,309.23 in full satisfaction of their lien and that “Medi-Cal paid $1,745.63 for services provided to Ms. Pimentel.” (Petition, Franzetti Decl., ¶¶6,9-10.) Accordingly, the existence of a lien contradicts the Petition wherein in states that “[n]one of the claimant's medical expenses have been paid by Medicare.”

Therefore, the Petition is to be re-filed correctly.

Second, courts generally allow attorneys to recover 25% in cases involving minors. While not applicable here, if there has been extensive discovery, any sort of law and motion practice, trial preparation, etc., judges will usually award 33%. 

Here, based on the court’s calculation (as Counsel does not provide one), 25% of $42,500 is $10,625. Even if the court were to add the additional expenses incurred ($2,045.14), the total is $12,670.14.

Therefore, the court seeks a supplemental declaration from Counsel explaining its calculation of attorney fees.

(June 29, 2022 Tentative.)

In the present application, Plaintiff’s counsel explains that “Medi-Cal has agreed to accept $1,309.23 in full satisfaction of their lien, contingent on this matter settling for $42,500.00. 4. Accordingly, the settlement amount must be approved by this Court before the Medi-Cal lien can be finalized.” (Franzetti Decl., pp. 1-2.) Therefore, the court agrees that it must approve the application for the lien to be resolved.

As for attorney fees, Counsel requests $10,625; thus, curing that defect.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, as the two previously denoted defects—(i) existence of liens and (ii) request for attorney fees in excess of 25%—have been cured, the court GRANTS the Petition.