On 10/24/2016 JACQUELINE ROSALES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against EVAN ANDREW DIRECTO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA C. ELLISON, HOLLY E. KENDIG and THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles, California
LAURA C. ELLISON
HOLLY E. KENDIG
THOMAS D. LONG
DIRECTO EVAN ANDREW
DOES 1 THROUGH 50
SCHECHTER BRUCE LEE ESQ.
SCHECHTER BRUCE LEE
LAW FIRM OF MCCLAUGHERTY & ASSOCIATES
VIDA SCOTT JAY
DEENA C. FARAH
MCCLAUGHERTY JAY S. ESQ.
ESQ. MCCLAUGHERTY JAY S.
MCCLAUGHERTY JAY STEPHEN ESQ.
9/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PETITION TO CONFIRM MINOR'S COMPROMISE)
10/7/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PETITION TO CONFIRM MINOR'S COMPROMISE)
10/24/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (LEGACY EVENT TYPE : OSC RE DISMISSAL)
2/9/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES DECLARATION OF BRIAN S COHEN PROPOSED ORDER
3/16/2018: DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE ON PLAINTIFF S
4/2/2018: [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCO VERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
6/13/2018: Notice - Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Off Calendar
7/10/2018: DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. FOUR TO TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ANTONELLA ROSALES' INJURIES AS IRRELEVANT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF JAY S. MCCLAUGHERTY.
7/19/2018: DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. FIVE TO TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' EXPERTS WHICH RELY ON LAYERED HEARSAY STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF PEOPLE V. SANCHEZ
7/20/2018: Reply - ISO MIL 1
7/23/2018: PLAINTIFFS' MATRIX OF VIDEO DESIGNATIONS OF DAVID KRAUSS (VOLUME 1); OBJECTIONS; COUNTER- DESIGNATIONS; AND REPLIES (CC.P. 2025.340 (M))
7/23/2018: PLAINTIFFS' MATRIX OF VIDEO DESIGNATIONS OF GEORGE CHOW, M.D. (VOLUME 2); OBJECTIONS; COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS; AND REPLIES (C.C.P. 2025.340 (M))
7/25/2018: JOINT MATRIX OF VIDEO DESIGNATIONS OF ANTHONY KRETZMER, ETC
8/23/2018: Minute Order -
8/28/2018: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-08-28 00:00:00
9/6/2018: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-09-06 00:00:00
9/14/2018: Other - - Matrix of video designations
11/19/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (1) Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial; 2) Hearing on...)
Hearing07/22/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) (and Proof of Deposit to Blocked Account (Form MC-356)) - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Notice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations]); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Failure to Prosecute) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder (Order to deposit in blocked account); Filed by Marco Rosales (Plaintiff); Antonella Rosales (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder (Order to Deposit Money into Blocked Account); Filed by Marco Rosales (Plaintiff); ROSALES ANTONELLA (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder (Order Approving Minor's Compromise); Filed by Marco Rosales (Plaintiff); ROSALES ANTONELLA (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Antonella Rosales (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrd Apptng Guardian Ad Litem; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Jacqueline Rosales (Plaintiff); MARCOS ROSALES (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEMRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC638327 Hearing Date: January 30, 2020 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
JACQUELINE ROSALES, ET AL.,
EVAN ANDREW DIRECTO, ET AL.,
CASE NO: BC638327
[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE
January 30, 2020
Plaintiffs, Jacqueline, Marco, and Antonella Rosales filed this action against Defendant, Evan Andrew Directo for damages arising out of automobile accident. The case went to trial, and Plaintiffs moved for a new trial after the jury verdict was entered. Prior to the hearing on the motion for new trial, the parties agreed to settle the case.
Antonella is a minor and is appearing in the action through her father and GAL, Marco. Antonella, by and through her GAL and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims in the case. Directo would pay $11,000 in settlement of her claims, and Jacqueline’s underinsured motorists’ policy would pay $12,500. If the settlement is approved, Petitioner will use $1800 to pay outstanding medical expenses, $5875 for attorneys’ fees, and $1020.62 for costs of suit; the net balance of $14,804.38 will be placed in a blocked account.
The Court has reviewed the settlement and finds that it is fair and reasonable. Counsel failed to file the required declaration in support of fees, which is required to be included as Attachment 14a to the petition. However, because the fees are in the amount of 25% of the gross settlement, the Court is inclined to find them fair and reasonable; this is especially true because the case went to trial and was settled after trial.
Pursuant to CRC 7.952, unless excused for good cause, Plaintiff and Petitioner must appear and testify to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court can approve the settlement. Plaintiff is thirteen years old, and therefore the Court will require her to personally appear and testify, along with Petitioner, prior to granting the petition. If the Court is satisfied with Plaintiff’s and Petitioner’s testimony at the time of the hearing, the Court will grant the petition.
Petitioner is ordered to give notice.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2020
Hon. Jon Takasugi
Judge of the Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases