This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:39:32 (UTC).

ESTEBAN MIGUEL SILVA JR VS WATTS LEARNING CENTER INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/22/2017 ESTEBAN MIGUEL SILVA JR filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against WATTS LEARNING CENTER INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2428

  • Filing Date:

    05/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SILVA ESTEBAN MIGUEL JR

Defendants and Respondents

WATTS LEARNING CENTER INC

DOES 1 TO 50

CUMMINGTS AUNDRE

CUMMINGS AUNDRE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BAER JOSEPH R. ESQ.

BARNES CHRISTOPHER DAVID

Defendant Attorney

BORDIN-WOSK JOSHUA ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

6/6/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

6/24/2019: Minute Order

Certificate of Mailing for

6/24/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/27/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEFENDANT, WATTS LEARNING CENTER, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE

7/20/2017: DEFENDANT, WATTS LEARNING CENTER, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE

Notice of Motion

10/4/2018: Notice of Motion

Separate Statement

10/4/2018: Separate Statement

Minute Order

11/6/2018: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

11/21/2018: Ex Parte Application

Motion to Compel

11/21/2018: Motion to Compel

Motion to Compel

4/19/2019: Motion to Compel

Separate Statement

4/19/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

4/25/2019: Separate Statement

Motion to Compel

4/25/2019: Motion to Compel

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

4/30/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/8/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/8/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Reply

5/17/2019: Reply

38 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/20/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • Docketat 2:04 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Esteban Miguel Jr Silva (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re: notice of settlement)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order re: notice of settlement) of 06/24/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel Deposition) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (DEFENDANTS? NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF?S MEDICAL RECORDS, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF TO GIVE AUTHORIZATION TO RECEIVE SUCH MEDICAL RECORDS) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
69 More Docket Entries
  • 06/27/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Esteban Miguel Jr Silva (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Esteban Miguel Jr Silva (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • DocketOrd Apptng Guardian Ad Litem; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Esteban Miguel Jr Silva (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC662428    Hearing Date: February 18, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

ESTEBAN MIGUEL SILVA JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WATTS LEARNING CENTER INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC662428

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

petition to approve compromise of pending action

The Court has reviewed the petition by Petitioner Claudia Silva (“Petitioner”) on behalf of Claimant Esteban Miguel Silva Jr. (“Claimant”). Claimant was knocked to the ground by another student and suffered a head injury. Claimant still suffers from the effects of a concussion. Petitioner proposes to settle this case for $50,000. Medi-Cal has waived its lien and one of the medical providers has agreed to accept $500 in satisfaction of its lien. Plaintiff’s counsel seeks $12,500 in fees. The remaining amount of $37,000 is allocated for “Attorney Costs.”

There are several problems with this petition. First, Petitioner has not proffered evidence from which the Court could determine if the claimed expenses were reasonable and for Claimant’s benefit. (See Prob. Code, § 3601.) Petitioner provides only a “Project Costs Detail” spreadsheet prepared by counsel. This spreadsheet contains little information regarding the nature of the claimed costs and why Counsel incurred them. For example, $1,684.72 of these claimed costs are described only as “Expenses.” This is unacceptable. By way of another example, the purported costs include $1,940.51 in travel expenses with no description as to the reason for the travel. The purported costs also include $2,971.80 for services rendered by Montage Legal Group. Petitioner has not demonstrated that these lawyers were retained by Petitioner or that Petitioner agreed to reimburse Counsel for their cost.

Second, Petitioner provides a copy of a “Contingency Fee Agreement Addendum” between Petitioner and Counsel as Attachment #18(a). The agreement does not contain any provision stating that Counsel is entitled to recover costs from Claimant’s recovery. If Counsel wishes to be reimbursed for these costs, Counsel must provide evidence that they are entitled to costs from the recovery. Item #18(a) specifically calls for a copy of the retainer agreement, which has not been provided.

Third, the Court has insufficient information to determine whether the settlement is fair and appropriate in light of the exorbitant costs in the case. The Court does not have sufficient information to determine whether $50,000 is a fair and appropriate settlement for a case of this nature, especially given the amount of expenses in the case.

Finally, the Court has concerns regarding the distribution of the settlement proceeds to Claimant’s counsel. An attorney may not charge an unconscionable fee.  (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 4-200(A).) A fee is unconscionable if it is “so exorbitant and wholly disproportionate to the services performed as to shock the conscience.”  (Tarver v. State Bar (1984) 37 Cal.3d 122, 134, internal quotations and citations omitted; see also ibid. (“Petitioner's claimed fee, excluding the amounts paid to Demanes, was almost twice the amount of the actual award of monetary damages to his client.”).)  Here, of the gross settlement amount of $50,000, only $500, or one percent of the settlement, is allocated towards Claimant’s damages and will satisfy a medical provider’s lien. The remaining $49,500 goes towards Claimant’s counsel’s fees and costs, the clarity and/or accuracy of which are unclear due to the lack of information.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Petitioner provides insufficient information based upon which this Court can approve the settlement. Therefore, the petition is denied without prejudice. Petitioner’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: February 18, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court