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
Plaintiffs, vs. CESAR ALVAREZ, Defendant. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[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.