Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2023-00025977-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 21, 2024

05/31/2024  09:00:00 AM  2004 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Hearing on Compromise of Claim 37-2023-00025977-CU-PO-CTL MORENO VS LA MESA-SPRING VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Tentative Ruling on Petition to Approve Minor's Compromise Moreno v. La Mesa-Spring Valley Schools, Case No. 2023-25977 May 31, 2024, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 2004 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This action arises out of an incident on a school bus in March of 2023. Plaintiff, a SDC student in the District, was a passenger. The District's bus driver trainee, Cloud, physically restrained and/or disciplined plaintiff without just cause, and abruptly resigned the next day when District representatives told him they would undertake an investigation of the incident.

The complaint was filed by plaintiff's father as GAL in June of 2023, and the FAC followed in September.

Cloud answered, but the District demurred. ROA 17-21. The demurrer was set for hearing before the assigned trial judge (Hon. K. Medel, who has now retired) in April, 2024. ROA 16. The case was set for trial in early 2025. ROA 31.

At the request of the parties (ROA 35), the undersigned met in person with the parties and their counsel on March 15 and again on April 5, 2024 for a judicially supervised settlement conference. ROA 43, 53.

A settlement was reached at the second session and placed on the record, subject to the filing and approval of the instant petition. ROA 52-54. The future dates before Judge Medel have been vacated.

ROA 48-51.

The court has now reviewed the petition.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. Section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires court approval for the compromise or settlement of any minor's claim. Any such settlement that has not received court approval may be repudiated by the minor's guardian ad litem, and cannot be enforced under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Scruton v. Korean Airlines (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1608. Generally, courts must consider the following factors: 1) the circumstances of the accident or other incident giving rise to the litigation, particularly the facts bearing on the payor's potential liability and the minor's damages; 2) the amount of Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3119340 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MORENO VS LA MESA-SPRING VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT  37-2023-00025977-CU-PO-CTL the proposed settlement; 3) how the settlement will be paid (e.g. in a lump sum or via an annuity); 4) the nature of the injury and the minor's current medical status and prognosis; and 5) the amount of attorneys' fees and other transaction costs being requested. CRC 7.950. Attorneys' fees must be analyzed in accordance with the 14 factors set forth in CRC 7.955(b). See Gonzales v. Chen (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 881, 885.

In addition to analyzing the settlement in light of these factors, the court must find that the amount of the proposed settlement and the payment terms and attorneys' fees appear reasonable in light of the potential liability and the nature and extent of the injuries. The court must also take care to confirm that the settlement will be sufficient to address any otherwise unmet future medical needs of the child, and also that the guardian ad litem understands the terms and finality of the settlement; understands that the settlement proceeds belong to the minor and generally may not be invaded by the guardian or parent; and believes the settlement is in the minor's best interests. Finally, in a case involving (as here) an annuity or other structured settlement, the court must consider the financial rating of the company that is ultimately responsible and take pains to insure that the funds will be appropriately husbanded during the remaining period of the child's minority. See generally Probate Code sections 3601, 3602, 3611.

B. The essence of a settlement is compromise: the 'yielding of absolutes and an abandoning of highest hopes.' Linney v. Cellular Alaska Partnership, 151 F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th Cir. 1998).

3. Discussion and Ruling.

Subject to a discussion with the GAL regarding a few items, the petition is granted, and the settlement is approved. The court will sign the proposed order on Judicial Council form MC-351.

During the extended settlement conference, the court had the opportunity to become intimately familiar with the facts and the contentions of the parties (including watching the surveillance video of the event, meeting the plaintiff, meeting defendant Cloud and his wife, spending several hours with counsel for the parties, conducting a detailed review of the pleadings, papers and settlement briefs, and having several extended discussions with the GAL). This has allowed the court to gain insights into the case that would not have been available to Judge Medel (and indeed learn several things that would not have become known to the jury had the case gone to trial).

The second session of the settlement conference was scheduled to facilitate defense counsel's creative inquiry into a structured settlement, which (combined with the GAL's flexibility and that of plaintiff's counsel) ended up being the key to reaching a mutually acceptable resolution of the case.

Considering the factors outlined in part 2 above, the settlement is in the best interests of the minor.

Plaintiff's counsel has generously agreed to accept a contingent fee of less than 20% of the gross settlement. The GAL has affirmatively indicated his understanding of and consent to the settlement.

The deferred nature of the payout is particularly appropriate given the issues the minor and the GAL have been addressing (both related to Cloud's conduct and otherwise). The settlement eliminates the need for the minor to testify about the event, which could prove to be a 'triggering event' the parties and the court are eager to avoid.

The court cannot eliminate the possibility of a future motion under Insurance Code § 10139.5 seeking a transfer of the payments that will become due to plaintiff. All the court can say to a future judicial officer that may be considering such a petition is this: the GAL thought long and hard about the structured settlement that facilitated resolution of this case. He overcame, with the assistance of his attorney and the undersigned, his initial skepticism and misgivings. He had strong, valid reasons to have the payments deferred, maturely taking into account his son's diagnosis as well as his own experiences as a young adult and the circumstances of his family. The undersigned counsels the hypothetical future judicial officer to undertake a careful consideration of whether the proposed transfer is in the best

interest of the payee in light of this unique set of facts.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3119340