Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV45032, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45032    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On December 9, 2021, Plaintiff Joseph Rodriguez by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Margarett Dondis filed the instant action against Defendants Montessori of Valencia and Montessori of Valencia, Inc. for premises liability, negligent supervision, negligent hiring, and negligent retention. The action arises out of burns Plaintiff sustained due to hot water spilling on him.

          On July 6, 2022, Petitioner Margarett Dondis, Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem, filed the instant expedited petition for approval of minor’s compromise for claimant Joseph Rodriguez, a minor.

          By virtue of the fact that the gross settlement in this matter is $490,000 this matter is not actually eligible for handling as an expedited petition.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

Court approval is required to establish an enforceable settlement of a minor’s claim. (Prob. Code, §§ 2504, 3500, 3600, et seq.; C.C.P., § 372.)  Indeed, until a petition for such approval is granted by the court, there is no final settlement, and any prior settlement agreement is voidable.  (Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1603–1605.)

California Rules of Court, Rule 7.950, et seq., governs the procedures for Court approval of a minor’s compromise under the Probate Code.  The Application forms must properly state the age and sex of the minors, the nature and extent of the injuries, and the facts and circumstances out of which the injuries arose. Plaintiff’s counsel must disclose his interest. (Ibid.) 

Under California Rules of Court, Rule 7.955(a)(1), the Court “must use a reasonable fee standard when approving and allowing the amount of attorney’s fees payable from money or property paid or to be paid for the benefit of a minor…”  Also, the court must give weight to the terms of any existing representation agreement.  (See CRC, Rule 7.955(a)(2).)  Other non-exclusive factors to consider include: (1) the fact that a minor is involved, and her particular circumstances; (2) the length and nature of representation; and (3) the time and labor required.  (See CRC, Rule 7.955(b)(1–14).) 

III.     DISCUSSION

          The Court finds that Petitioner has complied with California Rules of Court Rule 7.950. Petitioner has also attached Plaintiff’s relevant medical reports, medical bills and outstanding balances, retainer agreement, and attached the terms and conditions of the single-premium deferred annuity. As to attorneys’ fees, the requested fee amounts to approximately 25% of the minor’s claim. The attached declaration shows this matter was taken on a contingency basis and details the work conducted on this case. The Court finds the attorneys’ fees to be reasonable under the circumstances.

          Item 12b(2)(c) and (f)(ii)(C) states that $65,724.69 will be reimbursed to an unidentified insurance plan in full satisfaction of its lien rights. Having examined the medical report and billing attachments to the Petition, it is not clear to the Court how it may conclude that none of the medical providers have outstanding bills or that the Court can be sure that the lien rights of the unnamed plan have been fully satisfied. Inasmuch as the proposed order appears to provide for this amount to be paid to counsel for Petitioner as a reimbursement, the Court wishes to have greater transparency as to what amounts were billed, who paid those bills, whether the amount paid on those bills were comparable to amounts that would have been paid by private medical insurance or MediCal, and what assurance the Petitioner has that any differences in the amounts billed and paid or reimbursed will not become the responsibility of the Petitioner or minor claimant.  

          The Court notes that the calculations of the payouts on the annuity were based on a premium payment date of June 29, 2022, which is a date earlier than the July 6, 2022, filing date of the Petition, possibly making the calculations attached to the Petition already outdated on the filing date. That should be addressed.

Finally, the Court notes that Item 21 should not be checked as the claimant is a minor.

IV.     CONCLUSION

The hearing on this Petition is continued [30 days] to permit Petitioner to address the issues raised above.

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.