MUAJ AHMED VS YONG WOONG KIM

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC09615    Hearing Date: October 15, 2020    Dept: 26

Ahmed v. Kim, et al.

THIRD AMENDED EXPEDITED PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION ON BEHALF OF A MINOR

RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE:

NO TENTATIVE RULING TO ISSUE AT THIS TIME. RULING TO DEPEND ON PETITIONER’S SHOWING AT THE HEARING.

Discussion

On September 15, 2019, minor Muaj Ahmed, through his Guardian ad Litem Morsheda Keka, filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Yong Woong Kim (“Defendant”). Morsheda Keka was appointed minor Muaj Ahmed’s Guardian ad Litem on November 6, 2019.

On November 12, 2019, Petitioner Morsheda Keka (“Petitioner”) filed an Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action (the “first Expedited Petition”) on behalf of minor Plaintiff Muaj Ahmed (“Claimant”). On November 22, 2019, the Court found it could not grant the first Expedited Petition because of several defects and set the matter for hearing on February 24, 2020.

On December 4, 2019, Petitioner filed a second Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action (the “Second Expedited Petition”). At the hearing on February 24, 2020, the Court’s tentative ruling was to continue the hearing to allow Petitioner to correct certain defects. When Petitioner failed to make an appearance at the hearing, the Court placed the hearing off calendar. On the same date, Petitioner filed a third Amended Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action.

On August 18, 2020, the Court issued a ruling on the Third Amended Expedited Petition, again finding it incomplete in numerous respects. The Court set the Petition for hearing on October 15, 2020. To date, no supplemental papers have been filed.

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; CRC 7.950.)

The Court previously noted the following defects in the Third Amended Expedited Petition:

· Item 10: no copy of the doctor’s reports regarding the minor Claimant’s injuries, diagnosis and prognosis.

· Item 14a: the numbers in this item do not add up; the differences have not been explained; no explanation of each medical expense payer and the amount paid.

· Item 14c: final Medi-Cal demand letter not attached.

· Item 14g: latest statements from all medical service providers are not attached.

· Item 15a: retainer agreement not attached.

· Item 20b5: although not incorrect, transfer of the net settlement proceeds under the California Uniform Transfers to Minors Act is unusual. Petitioner must explain why the funds should not be deposited into a blocked account subject to withdrawal only upon Court order.

Accordingly, no tentative ruling to issue at this time. Ruling to depend on Petitioner’s showing at the hearing.

Case Number: 19STLC09615    Hearing Date: February 24, 2020    Dept: 26

Ahmed v. Kim

PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF PENDING ACTION

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

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petition of Morsheda Keka to Approve Minor’s Compromise of Claim on behalf of minor Claimant Ahmed Muaj is CONTINUED.

ANALYSIS:

On September 15, 2019, minor Ahmed Muaj, allegedly through his Guardian ad Litem Morsheda Keka, filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Yong Woong Kim (“Defendant”).

On November 12, 2019, Petitioner Morsheda Keka (“Petitioner”) filed an Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action (the “first Expedited Petition”) on behalf of minor Plaintiff Ahmed Muaj (“Claimant”).

On November 22, 2019, the Court found it could not grant the first Expedited Petition because of several defects.

On December 4, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant[1] Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action (the “Second Expedited Petition”).

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.)

Having reviewed the Second Expedited Petition, the Court finds it corrects the previous defects, including a reduction of the sought attorney fees that is more reasonable. The Court notes that the Second Expedited Petition contains two “Page 4s.”

However, as to the disposition of balance of proceeds, Petitioner checks the box that states a guardian of the estate of the minor will be appointed and the balance will be paid or delivered to the person so appointed. No Attachment 20b(1) is attached to the Second Expedited Petition. It is not clear that a guardian of the estate has been appointed, notwithstanding Petitioner is the appointed Guardian ad Litem for Claimant.

Per CRC 7.950.5(c)(1), a hearing must be held on the Second Expedited Petition because it is not granted. The Court hereby schedules a hearing on the Expedited Petition for March 18, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 26. If Petitioner files an amended petition and supplemental papers at least 16 court days before the hearing date to cure the identified defects, the Court will consider granting the Expedited Petition at the hearing.

Moving party to give notice.