Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: BC678380, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC678380    Hearing Date: August 22, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

JOE ESQUIVEL, JR., et al.

                        Plaintiffs,

            vs.

 

CESAR ALVAREZ,

 

                        Defendant.

 

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: BC678380

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION FOR EXPEDITED APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF CLAIM OR ACTION OR DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS OF JUDGMENT FOR MINOR

 

Dept. 27

8:30 a.m.

August 22, 2022

 

I.         BACKGROUND

On October 3, 2017, Joe Esquivel, Jr., Angela Esquivel, and Joe Esquivel, III, a minor (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated the present action by filing a Complaint against Cesar Alvarez (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 25.  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence.  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges, on approximately May 8, 2016, Defendant operated a motor vehicle in a negligent manner on the 71 Freeway South in Pomona, California, and caused the motor vehicle to collide into another motor vehicle being operated by Plaintiff Joe Esquivel, Jr., and in which Plaintiffs Angela Esquivel and Joe Esquivel, III were passengers. 

On October 19, 2017, the Court issued an Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem, whereby the Court appointed Plaintiff Angela Esquivel as Plaintiff Joe Esquivel III’s guardian ad litem. 

On January 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff Angela Esquivel (hereinafter, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment For Minor, Plaintiff Joe Esquivel III (hereinafter, “Claimant”) (hereinafter, “Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Action For Minor”).

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          An enforceable settlement of a minor’s claim or that of a person lacking the capacity to make decisions can only be consummated with court approval.  (Prob. Code, §§ 2504, 3500, 3600 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372; see Pearson v. Sup.Ct. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337.)  “[T]he protective role the court generally assumed in cases involving minors, [is] a role to assure that whatever is done is in the minor's best interests . . . [I]ts primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor's injuries, care and treatment.”  (Goldberg v. Sup. Ct. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.)

          A petition for court approval of a compromise of a minor’s or disabled person’s claim, made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 372, must comply with California Rules of Court, Rules 7.950, 7.951 and 7.952.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 7.950, 7.951, 7.952.) 

          California Rules of Court, Rule 7.950 provides, “[a] petition for court approval of a compromise . . . of a minor’s disputed claim . . . under . . . Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing on the reasonableness of the compromise . . . .”  (Id. Rule, 7.950.)  California Rules of Court, Rule 7.950 additionally provides that, generally, a petition for court approval of a compromise of a minor’s disputed claim “must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).  (Ibid.)

          Alternatively, California Rule of Court, Rule 7.950.5 provides, in certain circumstances, a petition for court approval of a compromise of a minor’s disputed claim may be advanced in an expedited manner, and may be made upon Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350EX).  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.950.5, subd. (a).)  A petition for court approval of a compromise of a minor’s disputed claim may only be made in an expedited manner if all of the following requirements are satisfied: (1)  The petitioner is represented by an attorney authorized to practice in the courts of this state; (2)  The claim is not for damages for the wrongful death of a person; (3)  No portion of the net proceeds of the compromise, settlement, or judgment in favor of the minor or disabled claimant is to be placed in a trust; (4)  There are no unresolved disputes concerning liens to be satisfied from the proceeds of the compromise, settlement, or judgment; (5)  The petitioner's attorney did not become involved in the matter at the direct or indirect request of a person against whom the claim is asserted or an insurance carrier for that person; (6)  The petitioner's attorney is neither employed by nor associated with a defendant or insurance carrier in connection with the petition; (7)  If an action has been filed on the claim: (A)  All defendants that have appeared in the action are participating in the compromise; or (B)  The court has finally determined that the settling parties entered into the settlement in good faith; (8)  The judgment for the minor or claimant with a disability (exclusive of interest and costs) or the total amount payable to the minor or claimant with a disability and all other parties under the proposed compromise or settlement is $50,000 or less or, if greater: (A)  The total amount payable to the minor or claimant with a disability represents payment of the individual-person policy limits of all liability insurance policies covering all proposed contributing parties; and (B)  All proposed contributing parties would be substantially unable to discharge an adverse judgment on the claim from assets other than the proceeds of their liability insurance policies; and (9)  The court does not otherwise order.  (Ibid.)

III.      DISCUSSION

          The Court presently considers Petitioner Angela Esquivel’s Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Action For Minor, Claimant Joe Esquivel III.  Petitioner’s Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Action For Minor may be referenced below as “Expedited Petition”.

          Initially, the Court recognizes that Petitioner’s Expedited Petition properly complies with the nine (9) distinct requirements outlined within California Rules of Court, Rule 7.950.5, subdivision (a).  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.950.5, subd. (a).)  Accordingly, Petitioner is authorized to advance the instant request for court approval of a compromise of a minor, in an expedited manner, upon Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350EX).  (Ibid.) 

          Further, the Court finds that Petitioner has proffered a majority, although not all, of the information and attachments which are required under the expressed instructions outlined within the present Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Action For Minor.   

          The Court recognizes that, as instructed within Section 9 of the Expedited Petition, Petitioner has properly attached a photocopy of Claimant’s medical records.  (Expedited Petition, at Attachment 9.)  The medical records produced indicate, following the subject motor vehicle collision, Claimant received medical treatment for the purposes of remedying “neck pain, sprain of joints and ligaments of cervical spine, upper & lower back pain, lumbar sprain and strain, and emotional injuries (pain and suffering) secondary to orthopedic injuries.”  (Ibid.)    Specifically, the medical records indicate Claimant received treatment at the following medical facilities: Lakeside Community Healthcare Medical Group-West Covina; and West Covina Premiere Chiropractic Center.  Additionally, the medical records indicate that Claimant has presently recovered complete from the effects of his physical injuries.

          The Court additionally recognizes that Petitioner has provided sufficient documentation, demonstrating that Defendant Cesar Alvarez reached a settlement with Claimant in the sum of approximately $2,555.00.  (Expedited Petition, at p. 11.)  Petitioner, further, as instructed within Section 11c of the Expedited Petition, has outlined the terms of the settlement reached between the parties within Attachment 11c.  (Id. at Attachment 11c.) 

          Petitioner has, additionally, properly provided photocopies of Claimant’s medical bills, as instructed within Section 13a of the Expedited Petition, which demonstrate that Claimant has incurred medical expenses for treatment of the aforementioned physical injuries equal to approximately $557.57.  (Expedited Petition, at Attachment 13a.) 

          Further, as required by Section 14a of Petitioner’s Expedited Petition, Petitioner has properly provided this Court with a copy of the Retainer Agreement entered between Claimant and Claimant’s Counsel, as well as a Declaration of Claimant’s Counsel in support of Claimant’s Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees.  (Expedited Petition, Attachment 14a.)  Petitioner has also provided this Court with proof of the costs requested by Claimant’s Counsel.  (Ibid.)

          Lastly, the Court recognizes, in compliance with the instructions outlined within Section 19b of the Expedited Petition, Petitioner has identified in Attachment 19b(2) the name, branch, and address of each banking establishment within which Petitioner proposes depositing the net proceeds of Claimant’s settlement.

           However, despite Petitioner’s compliance with the various instructions outlined within the instant Expedited Petition, the Court is presently unable to approve Petitioner’s Expedited Petition due to the following defects. 

          First, although Petitioner identifies that Claimant’s health plan has engaged in negotiations with Petitioner and, subsequently, agreed to accept a reduced reimbursement amount with respect to Claimant’s medical expenses, Petitioner has provided no documentary proof of such an agreement.  Specifically, Section 13 of Petitioner’s Expedited Petition represents that Claimant’s health plan is requesting reimbursement for the sum of Claimant’s medical expenses, which equate to approximately $557.57.  (Expedited Petition, at p. 4 [Section 13d].)  Petitioner represents that, in full satisfaction of the outstanding medical lien, Claimant’s health plan has agreed to accept a negotiated reduction equal to $407.57.  (Ibid. [Section f(2)].)  However, Petitioner’s Expedited Petition provide no documentary proof of such a negotiated agreement between the parties.

          Second, the Court recognizes that, by and through the present Expedited Petition, Claimant’s Counsel requests attorneys’ fees equal to forty percent (40%) of Claimant’s gross settlement (requesting attorneys’ fees equal to $1,022.00).  (Expedited Petition, at p. 4.)  While Claimant’s Counsel has properly submitted a Declaration in Support of Attorneys’ Fees, such a Declaration is inadequate to support the amount in attorneys’ fees requested.  Claimant’s Counsel’s supporting Declaration must specifically outline the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved in this case, as well as the special skill required to perform the legal services properly, for the purposes of supporting the particularly high request for attorneys’ fees.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.955, subd. (b) [factors the court may consider in determining a reasonable attorney's fee].) 

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Petition for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment For Minor, Plaintiff Joe Esquivel III is DENIED, without prejudice.

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’s 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.