TERRELL CRYER VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise

Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On October 19, 2015, Plaintiff Terrell Cryer, by and through his guardian ad litem Helen Cryer, filed a complaint against Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District and William Riley alleging a breach of a mandatory duty and general negligence for Defendant Riley’s pushing of Plaintiff’s head into a pole on June 2, 2014.

On August 28, 2019, Petitioner Helen Cryer filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Plaintiff.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is set for November 12, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Petitioner Helen Cryer (“Petitioner”) asks the Court to grant a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Plaintiff Terrell Cryer (“Claimant”).

LEGAL STANDARD

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

DISCUSSION

The Court finds the petition is properly approved.

All of the required attachments are included with the petition. Los Angeles Unified School District and William Riley are to pay jointly and severally.  $1,668.47 of the gross settlement is to cover medical expenses, including a $1,250.07 payment to Department of Health Care Services and a $418.40 payment to the Rawlings Company LLC.  $8,750 or 25% of the gross settlement is to be paid for attorney’s fees, which is reasonable considering the preliminary discovery and motion practice that was conducted in this case as outlined in James L. Reynolds’ declaration.  $2,817.02 of the gross settlement is to be paid for costs.  The net settlement of $21,764.51 is to be deposited in a blocked account at Wells Fargo bank, 36495 Stocker Street, Los Angeles, California 90008 subject to withdrawal only upon the authorization of the Court.

The Court notes that item 19.b.(2) is not selected in the petition.  But this failure to select this option is not fatal to the petition because it is clear Petitioner mistakenly failed to select this option.  This is because the net settlement is still included in this section and there is an Attachment 19b(3), both of which would only be present if it were Petitioner’s intention to have the net settlement deposited into a blocked account subject to withdrawal upon Court approval.

The petition for minor’s compromise filed on August 28, 2019 for Claimant is APPROVED.

The Court shall sign the proposed order concurrently filed with the August 28, 2019 petition for minor’s compromise.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.