Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV13324, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV13324    Hearing Date: August 29, 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.

August 29, 2022

 

          Petitioner Irasema Mendoza (“Petitioner”) seeks approval of the settlement entered into on behalf of Claimant Audrey Reyes (“Claimant”).

          On July 25, 2022, the Court found the petition submitted on July 13, 2022 properly addressed and corrected the issues set forth in the July 5, 2022 order.  However, the Court noted that while Petitioner’s counsel has attached the Attorney-Client Retainer Agreement in Attachment 18a, counsel did not include a declaration in support of the requested attorney’s fees.  The Court also noted that Petitioner incorrectly filed out item 19.  The Court continued the hearing on the petition and ordered counsel to provide a declaration in support of the requested fees and correct the deficiency in Item 19.

On August 19, 2022, Petitioner filed a second amended petition and a declaration in support of the requested attorney’s fees.  The second amended petition corrects the deficiency in Item 19.  While the declaration in support of attorney’s fees is separately filed and not included with the petition as Attachment 14a, the Court finds the declaration is sufficient to support the requested attorney’s fees.

However, the Court notes there are still deficiencies that preclude the granting of the petition. 

With respect to the petition, item 11c of the petition is incomplete.  Petitioner must set forth the terms of the settlement.  Further, Petitioner has failed to include Attachment 19b(2) setting forth the name, branch, and address of the bank where the funds will be deposited.

As for the proposed orders, Petitioner has failed to submit any proposed orders with the second amended petition.  To the extent Petitioner relies on the proposed orders submitted on July 13, 2022, the Court notes there are deficiencies regarding these proposed orders.

With respect to the proposed order approving the compromise (MC-351), the Court notes the following issues:

-        Item 7a is incomplete with respect to the gross settlement amount.

-        Item 7c(1)(a) is incorrectly completed.  Petitioner improperly combines the amount of attorney’s fees being paid to counsel and the amount of costs being reimbursed to counsel in Item 7c(1)(a).  Petitioner should only indicate the amount of attorney’s fees being paid to counsel in Item 7c(1)(a) (i.e., $19,500.00) and indicate the amount of costs being reimbursed to counsel (i.e., $593.25) in Item 7c(1)(b).

-        Item 7c(1)(c)(i)(A) is incomplete with respect to the Department of Health Care Service’s address.

-        Item 7c(1)(e) is incomplete with respect to the total amount of expenses to be paid from the settlement (i.e., $20,490.12).

-        Item 7c(2) is incorrectly completed.  As the proposed funds are being deposited into a blocked account, Petitioner should complete Item 7c(2)(a), not 7c(2)(b).

-        Item 8a is incomplete.

With respect to the proposed order to deposit money into blocked account (MC-355), the Court notes Item 5b is incomplete with respect to Claimant’s birthdate.

Accordingly, the petition is CONTINUED to ____________.  Petitioner is ordered to file an amended petition and proposed orders correcting the above-identified defects.

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.