Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/24/2019 at 03:07:29 (UTC).

DANIEL ESPINOZA VS MARIO RIOS ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/10/2017 DANIEL ESPINOZA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MARIO RIOS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8889

  • Filing Date:

    10/10/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Defendants and Respondents

RIOS MARIO

DOES 1 TO 50

RIOS DAWN

Minor

ESPINOZA DANIEL

Guardian Ad Litem

BONALES ART

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Minor Attorney

NELSON DANIEL L. ESQ.

Other Attorneys

NATALE SILVIO L.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

3/26/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

4/10/2019: Minute Order

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

10/10/2017: EX PARTE APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

11/3/2017: NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

10/10/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • EX PARTE APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC678889    Hearing Date: March 30, 2021    Dept: 28

Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action on Behalf of Disabled Adult Daniel Espinoza

Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff Daniel Espinoza filed a complaint against Defendants Mario Rios and Dawn Rios.  Plaintiff Daniel Espinoza alleges general and motor vehicle negligence in the complaint arising from an automobile-pedestrian collision that occurred on October 12, 2015.

On February 3, 2021, Petitioner Art Bonales (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action on behalf of Claimant Daniel Espinoza (“Claimant”).

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is scheduled for May 12, 2021.

DISCUSSION

The Court has found four defects in the petition that preclude the granting of the petition.

First, no proof of service has been filed as to the State Director of Health Care Services, the Director of State Hospitals, and the Director of Developmental Services at the office of each director in Sacramento as required by Probate Code section 3602, subdivision (f).

Second, Article One, Section Three of the trust instrument improperly allows for the distribution of assets to unnamed remainder beneficiaries.  More specifically, the trust states “Although Beneficiary is the sole Beneficiary during his life (see POMS SI 01120.201(F)), the Trust also has remainder beneficiaries . . . .”  The trust must be modified to clearly indicate that the remainder beneficiaries of the trust shall be Claimant’s heirs-at-law in compliance with Probate Code section 6400, et seq. The trust may not identify specific beneficiaries.

Third, the trust does not contain a required provision that all statutory liens in favor of the State Department of Health Care Services, the State Department of State Hospitals, the State Department of Developmental Services be satisfied prior to distribution in compliance with Probate Code section 3604, subdivision (d).

Fourth, there are no facts alleged showing Claimant is likely to have special needs that will not be met without the trust and the money to be paid to the trust does not exceed the amount that appears reasonable necessary to meet the special needs of Claimant.  (See Prob. Code, § 3604, subd. (2)-(3).)  The evidence showing Claimant has a traumatic brain injury such that he relies on Petitioner, alone, is insufficient for the Court to make the above required findings.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the petition is CONTINUED to May 12, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. to allow Petitioner to file a complete an amended petition with all required attachments and proposed orders correcting the above-identified deficiencies.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Petitioner is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer NATALE SILVIO LEONARD ESQ.