Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV13324, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV13324    Hearing Date: July 25, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

audrey reyes, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, IRASEMA MENDOZA

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s),

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 20STCV13324

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

July 25, 2022

 

I.       INTRODUCTION

On July 5, 2022, the Court denied the Expedited Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise and noted the following deficiencies: (1) Item 3g is not filled out, (2) Item 5b is not filled out, (3) Item 14 indicates that both Medicare and Medi-Cal have paid for Claimant’s medical expenses, however, as Claimant is under the age of 65, Petitioner should submit evidence that the Department of Health Care Services has been notified of this settlement, (4) Item 16 is not completed, (5) Item 17 is not completed, (6) Item 20 is not completed, and (7) there is no proposed order on Form MC-351.

On July 13, 2022, Petitioner Irasema Mendoza filed a Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise of a Disputed Claim. Claimant Audrey Reyes (“Claimant”), a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Irasema Mendoza (“Petitioner”), has agreed to settle his claims against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District in exchange for $65,000.00. If approved, $19,500 will be used to pay attorney’s fees, $396.87 will be used to pay medical expenses, and $593.25 will be used for non-medical expenses. Her medical expenses total $21,177.61 and Petitioner has provided negotiated reductions. If approved, the $44,509.88 will be deposited in insured accounts in one or more financial institutions in this state from which no withdrawals can be made without a court order.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

Code of Civil Procedure section 372, subdivision (a)(1) provides in pertinent part that when “a person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions . . . is a party, that person shall appear . . . by guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action or proceeding is pending . . . . The . . . guardian ad litem so appearing for [the] person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions . . . shall have power, with the approval of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, to compromise the same . . . .”  

The motion must be filed on Judicial Council form MC-350, and no memorandum of points and authorities is required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 7.950, 3.1114(a)(12)).

III.     DISCUSSION

On July 5, 2022, the Court noted the following deficiencies: (1) Item 3g is not filled out, (2) Item 5b is not filled out, (3) Item 14 indicates that both Medicare and Medi-Cal have paid for Claimant’s medical expenses, however, as Claimant is under the age of 65, Petitioner should submit evidence that the Department of Health Care Services has been notified of this settlement, (4) Item 16 is not completed, (5) Item 17 is not completed, (6) Item 20 is not completed, and (7) there is no proposed order on Form MC-351.

Petitioner has properly filled out Item 3 informing the Court that Petitioner is the parent and Guardian Ad Litem of Claimant. A review of eCourt reveals that an Application and Order for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem was filed and granted on November 17, 2020. Petitioner has properly filled out Item 5b.

Petitioner has also properly filled out Item 13, previously listed as Item 14, correctly checking that Claimant’s medical expenses was paid by Medi-Cal in the amount of $535.66 and Medi-Cal has agreed to accept reimbursement in the amount of $396.87 in full satisfactions of its liens right. Petitioner has also attached Attachment 13b(4)(a) and 13b(4)(c). Petitioner has also properly filled out Item 16. Petitioner has also properly filled out Item 17. Petitioner has left Item 20 blank, as it does not apply to Petitioner’s claim. Petitioner also filed a proposed order (Form MC-351).

However, in the current Petition, Petitioner’s counsel has attached the Attorney-Client Retainer Agreement in Attachment 18A but did not include a declaration in support of its attorney’s fees. Counsel is ordered to file a declaration in support of its attorney’s fees. The Court also notes that Petitioner has incorrectly filled out Item 19 as both a and b are checked but they are incompatible. Item 19(a) would appear to be incorrectly checked as no guardianship has been created in this case (20STCV13324); that the parent is a guardian ad litem is actually not the same thing as the creation of a guardianship through the probate court.

Counsel is ordered to provide a declaration in support of its attorney’s fees and correct the deficiency in Item 19.

IV.     CONCLUSION

The hearing on the Petition to approve minor’s compromise is continued to August 29, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. to permit the Petitioner to address the remaining issues with the Petition.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.