PATRICK IGNACIO VS POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952(a), Petitioner and Claimants are required to attend the hearing on the petition. However, the Court finds that Claimants’ attendance is not required due to Claimants’ age and the settlement amount. 

DISCUSSION

This case has been continued multiple times since January 17, 2019.  No new papers have been filed other than rejected applications for appointment of guardian ad litem for Patrick Ignacio.  Thus, the same defects that were previously addressed in the Court’s January 17, 2019 Order still stand.  The defects are as follows:

1. A proposed order must be attached for review.  

The proposed order must attach a copy of the proposed special needs trust instrument to capture the text of the trust being approved.  The proposed order is to include all the findings under Probate Code §3604(b).  The proposed order is to specify that the bond and accounting are waived, but trustee is required to report to the Probate Court if the trust assets ever exceed $20,000.  

The proposed order must also include language requiring Petitioner to open a separate proceeding for the trust by filing a certified copy of the settlement order establishing the trust with the Probate Court.  (LASC Rule 4.115(e)(1).)  Thus, the proposed order is to include: “The trustee is ordered to file LA County local form PRO 044 “Notice of Commencement of Proceeding of a Court Supervised Trust” under a new probate case number within 60 days.  An OSC re same is set for ______________.”

The requested fee constitutes approximately 40% of the gross settlement amount.  The court must apply a reasonable fee standard in approving attorney’s fees in a minor’s compromise petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955(a).)  Generally, 25% in attorney’s fees for a minor’s compromise petition is more than reasonable, unless a higher award can be justified.  Here, there is an insufficient record to justify a higher award.  Counsel attempts to justify a higher fee by stating that the litigation was intensive and lasted for more than hat the result was outstanding. The Court does not find counsel’s reasoning to be a sufficient basis for a higher award.  The fact that the contingency fee agreement provides for 40% of any recovery is also insufficient to justify a higher award.  The $41,000.00 in attorney’s fees sought by counsel is not justified by the evidence in

1. Paragraph 11 is incorrectly completed. 

Paragraph 11 requires the petition to list the defendants and amounts offered by each.  The petition only lists the “Gross Settlement of all Defendants.”

1. There are no attachments supporting the $14,166.64 in costs claimed in Paragraph 14.  

Petitioner must list and document the costs sought to be paid out of the settlement amount.  Neither has been done here.

The Court is therefore inclined to continue the hearing on the petition.¿ Petitioner is ordered to submit an amended petition and proposed order correcting the identified deficiencies.¿ If counsel intends to seek 40% in attorney’s fees, counsel must submit a supplemental declaration with specific details justifying a 40% award.¿ It also appears that Patrick no longer has a GAL, as his previous GAL passed away on May 15, 2019.