HEILY MORA VS BODEGA LATINA CORPORATION

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC01247    Hearing Date: November 02, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., November 2, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Mora v. Bodega Latina Corp. COMPL. FILED: 02-07-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC01247 DISC. C/O: 07-07-21

NOTICE: NO MOTION C/O: 07-22-21

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION 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 PENDING ACTION

(CCP § 372, CRC, rule 7.950)

TENTATIVE RULING:

As Defendant was given insufficient notice of the Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action, the hearing is CONTINUED TO DEC 3, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

SERVICE:

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

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

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 29, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 29, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On February 7, 2020, minor Plaintiff Heily Mora (“Claimant”), by and through her guardian ad litem Claudia Alvarado (“Petitioner”) filed this action for premises liability and general negligence against Defendant Bodega Latina Corporation dba El Super (“Defendant”). Petitioner was appointed as Claimant’s guardian ad litem on April 6, 2020. Petitioner then filed the instant Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action (the “Petition”) on behalf of Claimant on July 23, 2020.

On September 16, 2020, the Court noted several errors in the Petition and found that no proof of service was included demonstrating Defendant was served with the moving papers. (9/16/20 Minute Order.) Petitioner was ordered to file and serve an amended petition correcting the noted errors at least 16 court days before the scheduled. (Id.)

On October 20, 2020, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition, which was served on Defendant on October 19, 2020. 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.

However, the Amended Petition was served only ten court days before this hearing. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires that moving papers be served at least 16 court days before the scheduled hearing, plus an additional five calendar days if the papers are served by mail. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Here, the Amended Petition, served by mail, should have been mailed no later than October 3, 2020. As the Amended Petition was not mailed until October 19, 2020, the Court finds Defendant was not given sufficient notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) In addition, the proposed Order to Deposit Money into Blocked Account, Form MC-355, does not include a proof of service.

Accordingly, the Court cannot issue a ruling at this time and must instead CONTINUE the matter.

1. Conclusion & Order

As Defendant was given insufficient notice of the Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action, the hearing is CONTINUED TO DEC 3, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice.