HALIA NIEZ-ROBLES VS CAROL JEAN KIM

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC04527    Hearing Date: October 14, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., October 14, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Niez-Robles v. Kim PET. FILED: 05-08-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC04527 DISC. C/O: 10-05-20

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 10-20-20

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF A DISPUTED CLAIM ON BEHALF OF MINOR

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Pedro Robles on behalf of minor Claimant Halia Niez-Robles

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF A DISPUTED CLAIM

(CCP § 372, CRC, rule 7.950)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition to Approve Compromise of a Disputed Claim on Behalf of Minor is GRANTED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 7, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 7, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On May 8, 2019, Petitioner Pedro Robles (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim on behalf of minor Claimant Halia Niez-Robles (“Claimant”) against Respondent Carol Jean Kim (“Respondent”).

Following the initial hearing on August 26, 2019, the Court continued the matter to allow Petitioner to correct certain deficiencies in the Petition, including the rejection of Petitioner’s application to be appointed Claimant’s guardian ad litem. (8/26/19 Minute Order.) A second Petition was filed on October 4, 2019. On December 2, 2019, the Court continued the matter again because the application to be appointed Claimant’s guardian ad litem had been rejected a second time. (12/2/19 Minute Order.) On January 6, 2020, Petitioner’s third application to be appointed Claimant’s guardian ad litem was approved.

On March 2, 2020, the Court found that the Petition was incomplete and that Petitioner had failed to include a proof of service, so the hearing was continued to May 21, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. (3/2/20 Minute Order.)

On April 21, 2020, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition with a proof of service. That same day, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to July 27, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. (4/21/20 Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order.) On July 27, 2020, the Court again noted several errors in the Petition and continued the hearing one final time to October 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (7/27/20 Minute Order.) On September 21, 2020, Petitioner re-filed the Petition.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (Prob. Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; CCP § 372.) “‘[W]ithout trial court approval of the proposed compromise of the ward’s claim, the settlement cannot be valid. [Citation.] [¶] Nor is the settlement binding [on the minor] until it is endorsed by the trial court.’” (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.) A minor, like Claimant, “shall appear either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in each case.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 372, subd. (a)(1).) Alternatively, the petitioner may file a declaration demonstrating that he or she has a right to compromise the minor’s claim under Cal. Probate Code section 3500.

Regarding the substance of the Petition, to obtain court approval of the settlement of a minor’s claims, the petitioner must file a complete and “verified petition for approval of the settlement and must disclose ‘all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise.’ [Citations.]” (Barnes v. Western Heritage Ins. Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 249, 256; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) (Italics added.)

Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds it to be complete and the proposed settlement to be fair in light of Claimant’s injuries. The proposed Order Approving Compromise of Disputed Claim on Form MC-351 and proposed Order to Deposit Money into Blocked Account on Form MC-355 have also been filed and served. Accordingly, this Petition is GRANTED.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition to Approve Compromise of a Disputed Claim on Behalf of Minor is GRANTED.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC04527    Hearing Date: July 27, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., July 27, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Niez-Robles v. Kim PET. FILED: 05-08-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC04527 DISC. C/O: 10-05-20

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 10-20-20

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF A DISPUTED CLAIM ON BEHALF OF MINOR

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Pedro Robles on behalf of minor Claimant Halia Niez-Robles

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF A DISPUTED CLAIM

(CCP § 372, CRC, rule 7.950)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition to Approve Compromise of a Disputed Claim is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner is to file supplemental papers correcting the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so will result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 24, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 24, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On May 8, 2019, Petitioner Pedro Robles (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim on behalf of minor Claimant Halia Niez-Robles (“Claimant”) against Respondent Carol Jean Kim (“Respondent”).

Following the initial hearing on August 26, 2019, the Court continued the matter to allow Petitioner to correct certain deficiencies in the Petition, including the rejection of Petitioner’s application to be appointed Claimant’s guardian ad litem. (8/26/19 Minute Order.) A second Petition was filed on October 4, 2019. On December 2, 2019, the Court continued the matter again because the application to be appointed Claimant’s guardian ad litem had been rejected a second time. (12/2/19 Minute Order.) On January 6, 2020, Petitioner’s third application to be appointed Claimant’s guardian ad litem was approved.

On March 2, 2020, the Court found that the Petition was incomplete and that Petitioner had failed to include a proof of service, so the hearing was continued to May 21, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. (3/2/20 Minute Order.)

On April 21, 2020, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition with a proof of service. That same day, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to July 27, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. (4/21/20 Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order.) Petitioner was ordered to give notice of the continuance and to file a proof of service demonstrating it gave such notice. (Id.)

To date, Petitioner has not filed the requested proof of service and Respondent has not filed an opposition.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (See Prob. Code, §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) “[A] minor, a person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions, . . . shall appear either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in each case.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) Furthermore, a petition for court approval of a compromise of a minor must be fully completed. (See California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)

Having reviewed the Petition, the Court notes the following errors:

• MC-350, MC-351 ¶¶ 3: Petitioner is minor Claimant’s guardian ad litem so, box 3(b) should be checked.

• MC-350 ¶ 9: Petition indicates that Claimant has fully recovered from her injuries, but the attached doctor’s report dated October 18, 2017, indicates that her prognosis is “guarded” as the type of injuries she sustained “tend to heal slowly and in many cases incompletely.” The doctor also advised Claimant “may likely need continued courses of DC/PT Care with treatments ranging from $4,000.00 per month during more aggressive phases of treatment and $1,000.00 per month for maintenance therapy.” A more recent report indicating otherwise is not included.

• MC-350 ¶ 19: Petitioner checked off item 19(a)(3), which indicates that a guardianship or a conservator of the estate exists, but the Petition was not brought by either a guardian or a conservator. (See ¶ 3.) Petitioner also checked off box 19(b), which indicates that no guardianship or conservatorship exists in this case, but did not check off a method in which the funds should be disbursed. (See ¶ 19(b)(1)-(11).)

• The proof of service indicates only that the Petitioner served the Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise on Respondent. However, it is unclear whether copies of the proposed Order to Deposit Money into a Blocked Account (Form MC-355) and proposed Order Approving Compromise of Disputed Claim (Form MC-351) were also served as required.

In addition, Petitioner did not file a proof of service demonstrating it gave notice of the April 21 continuance as ordered. Should Respondent wish to oppose this Petition in person, she will be unable to do so.

Petitioner is ordered to correct these errors.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition to Approve Compromise of a Disputed Claim is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 14, 2020 at 10;00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner is to file supplemental papers correcting the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so will result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC04527    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 25

PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF A DISPUTED CLAIM

(CCP § 372, CRC, rule 7.950)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petition to Approve Compromise of a Disputed Claim is CONTINUED TO MAY 12, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner is to file supplemental papers correcting the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On May 8, 2019, Petitioner Pedro Robles (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim on behalf of minor Claimant Halia Niez-Robles (“Claimant”) against Respondent Carol Jean Kim (“Respondent”).

Following the initial hearing on August 26, 2019, the Court continued the matter to allow Petitioner to correct certain deficiencies in the Petition, including the rejection of Petitioner’s application to be appointed Claimant’s guardian ad litem. (8/26/19 Minute Order.) Petitioner filed a second Petition on October 4, 2019.

On December 2, 2019, the Court continued the matter again because the application to be appointed Claimant’s guardian ad litem had been rejected a second time. (12/2/19 Minute Order.)

On January 6, 2020, Petitioner’s third application to be appointed Claimant’s guardian ad litem was approved.

1. Legal Standard

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (See Prob. Code, §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) “[A] minor, a person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions, . . . shall appear either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in each case.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) Furthermore, a petition for court approval of a compromise of a minor must be fully completed. (See California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)

1. Discussion

Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that it is incomplete as follows:

• ¶ 14: No attorney declaration is attached as required by California Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subd. (c).

• ¶ 13: Item 13(a) States that medical expenses to be reimbursed total $10,707.30, but the breakdown of medical expenses to be reimbursed in item 13(b) totals only $10,360.30.

• ¶ 13: Item 13(b) states that statutory or contractual liens exist in the amount of $10,360.30, and that the lienholders have agreed to accept $6,480.30 in full satisfaction of said liens. It also lists lienholder information and owed amounts, but the amount stated only amounts to $4,500.00, not $6,480.30. Petitioner has not included Attachment 13b(5) to continue listing any additional amounts to make up the difference.

• ¶ 19: Petitioner checked off item 19(a)(3) indicating that a guardianship or conservatorship of the estate exists, but the Petition was not brought by a guardian or conservator (See ¶ 3.) In addition, Attachment 19a(3) not included.

• ¶ 2 on Form MC-351 is incomplete.

• No proof of service demonstrating Respondent was properly served is attached.

Accordingly, Petitioner is ordered to file an amended Petition correcting these deficiencies. Petitioner is urged to ensure the amended Petition is fully completed and that all monetary amounts are correct before submitting a third time.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition to Approve Compromise of a Disputed Claim is CONTINUED TO MAY 12, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

At least 16 days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner is to file supplemental papers correcting the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC04527    Hearing Date: December 02, 2019    Dept: 94

Niez-Robles v. Kim, et al.

PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION

(Prob. Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; CCP § 372)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petition of Pedro Robles on behalf of minor Claimant Halia Niez-Robles to Approve Minor’s Compromise of Claim is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

On May 8, 2019, Petitioner Pedro Robles (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim on behalf of minor Claimant Halia Niez-Robles (“Claimant”) against Respondent Carol Jean Kim (“Respondent”). Following the initial hearing on August 26, 2019, the Court continued the matter to allow Petitioner to correct certain deficiencies. Petitioner filed a second Petition on October 4, 2019.

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (See Prob. Code, §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) “[A] minor, a person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions, . . . shall appear either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in each case.” (CCP § 372.)

Petitioner’s first application to be appointed as Claimant’s guardian ad litem, filed on October 24, 2019, was rejected. A second application filed on November 12, 2019 was granted. A review of the settlement demonstrates that it is reasonable and provides minor Plaintiff with a significant sum in light of the injuries sustained. Therefore, the Petition is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

Moving party to give notice.