Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV48946, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48946    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

CESAR BARRAGAN, et al.,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

ADRIANA ASTORGA, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 20STCV48946

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION FOR ORDER APPROVING MINOR’S COMPROMISE

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

December 9, 2022

 

Claimant Cesar Barragan (“Claimant”), a minor, by and through his parent and guardian ad litem, Manuel Barragan (“Petitioner”), has agreed to settle his claims against Adriana Astorga and Coverlay Manufacturing in exchange for $1.515 million  If approved, $2,326.43 will be used for medical expenses, $606,000 will be used for attorney’s fees, and $40,392.58 will be used for non-medical expenses, leaving a balance of $841,280.99 for Claimant, with $130,749.37 to be deposited into a blocked account, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the court, and $701,531.62 to be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the court.  .

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim.  (Probate Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc. § 372.)  The petition must be verified and “must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing on the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.”  (CRC 7.950.) 

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the petition is unaccompanied by a proof of service showing that the petition and proposed orders have been served on all parties.  However, because a petition to approve a minor’s compromise is not a noticed motion, it does not appear that notice in conformity with CCP 1005(b) is required.  (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337, fn. 2.)  Therefore, the Court proceeds to review the terms of the settlement. 

The Court finds that the requested attorney’s fees, which amount to approximately 40% of the total settlement, are fair and reasonable in view of the amount of legal work involved in the case.  However, Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel must provide additional evidence substantiating the non-medical expenses for which reimbursement is requested. 

First, $7,800 for “Advanced Lending Litigation Cost Loan” is identified as a non-medical expense in Attachment 13b, but Petitioner fails to identify what litigation costs this loan is expected to cover and it is unclear whether the loan would be duplicative of the other costs that have already been listed.  Petitioner also should provide documentary evidence substantiating the $6,984.43 spent on “Collision and Injury Dynamics Expert/Examination/Material Costs,” the $6,502 spent on “Medical Expert/Examination Costs”, the $5,245.50 spent on “Rest Your Case Evidence Storage,” the $6,995 spent on “RED Expert Consulting Lien Resolutions,” and $3,927.32 for deposition costs.  The evidence should be accompanied by a declaration that provides a breakdown of the cost for each deposition and expert. 

Accordingly, the hearing is continued to December 27, 2022, so that Petitioner’s counsel may submit additional evidence as detailed in the above paragraph.  Any additional or revised paperwork should be submitted by December 22, 2022. 

Per California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952, Petitioner and Claimant must appear at the hearing, unless the Court finds good cause to excuse their appearance.  The Court finds that Petitioner and Claimant’s appearances are not necessary, but will require Petitioner’s counsel to appear.

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.