STEVAN CORTEZ ET AL VS KEYDEN KING ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC701001    Hearing Date: July 13, 2020    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: SECOND AMENDED PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE

Claimant Stevan Cortez (“Claimant”), a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Violeta Ventura (“Petitioner”), has agreed to settle his claims against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District in exchange for $100,000.00.

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (Probate Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc. § 372.) The Court has reviewed the proposed settlement and cannot find that it is fair and reasonable at this time. On July 6, 2020, counsel for Petitioner submitted a declaration requesting to increase the settlement by $40,000.00. The request is based on approximately $20,000.00 in supposed additional medical expenses incurred and paid by counsel. The request to increase the settlement amount indicates that Petitioner may not believe the settlement is fair. On that basis, the Court finds that there is insufficient evidence that the settlement is in the minor’s best interests. The Court cannot order the parties to settle at a higher number, and a minor’s compromise hearing is not a forum to re-negotiate a settlement agreement.

Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence of the increased medical bills that counsel claims to have paid. Item 5 shows significantly increased medical expenses from the originally-approved petition without documentation of those increased medical expenses or proof that counsel paid the increased medical expenses.

Item 13b(5)(a) is not complete because the total amounts are not listed in the blank and box.

Item 19 states both that Petitioner is the guardian or conservator of the minor’s estate and that there is no guardianship of minor’s estate. The petition does not include Attachments 19a(2), 19b(1), or 19 as indicated. A guardian or conservator of the minor’s estate is different from a guardian ad litem.

If the balance of the funds will be deposited into a blocked account as indicated in Item 19(b)(2), Petitioner must also submit Judicial Council Form MC-355 Order to Deposit Money into Blocked Account.

Petitioner’s counsel asks for $31,000.00 in attorney fees in Item 14, but then asks for $40,332.60 to $48,387.00 in fees in Item 21.3, without explanation. Item 21.3 also refers to medical expenses but does not refer to the provider, the amount of medical expenses, and whether the expenses have been paid and by whom.

Additionally, counsel’s declaration in support of the reasonableness of attorney fees does not adequately address the factors listed in California Rules of Court rule 7.955(b), as required by rule 7.955(c).

For these reasons, the Petition to Confirm Minor’s Compromise is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

Case Number: BC701001    Hearing Date: December 18, 2019    Dept: 48

PETITION FOR MINOR’S COMPROMISE

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Violeta Ventura on behalf of minor claimant Steven Cortez

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition filed.

PROOF OF SERVICE:

• Correct Address: Yes.
• 16/21 (CCP § 1005(b)): OK. Served by mail on October 31, 2019; continued to this ate per November 20, 2019 minute order.

• DENY petition for approval of minor’s compromise.

  ANALYSIS

  Petitions to Approve Minor’s Compromise

  “[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors [is] . . . to assure that whatever is done is in the minor's best interests. The court functions similarly in approving a minor's compromise where its primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor's injuries, care and treatment.” Goldberg v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.

  Pursuant to the settlement with Defendants LAUSD, Jose Palomera and Ruth Castillo, the minor claimant will receive $100,000, less $4,928.00 in medical expenses, $25,000 in attorney’s fees, $4,222.24 in expenses, leaving a balance of $65,849.76. The balance of the proceeds are to be deposited in an insured account subject to withdrawal only upon authorization of the Court. Petition, ¶ 9.b(2); attachment 19b(2).

  In his Declaration filed on December 2, 2019, attorney Jance M. Weberman states at ¶ 11 of her Declaration: “I do not believe I can in good conscience settle this case when the extent of the injuries are not known.” On that basis, the Court finds that there is insufficient evidence that the settlement is in the minor’s best interests if even his attorney believes there may be greater damage to the minor’s cognitive processes that require further examination. Id.

  Accordingly, the petition to approve minor’s compromise is DENIED.

Case Number: BC701001    Hearing Date: November 20, 2019    Dept: 48

PETITION FOR MINOR’S COMPROMISE

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Violeta Ventura on behalf of minor claimant Steven Cortez

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition filed.

PROOF OF SERVICE:

• Correct Address: Yes.
• 16/21 (CCP § 1005(b)): OK. Served by mail on October 31, 2019.

• CONTINUE hearing on petition for approval of minor’s compromise for submission of supplemental declaration.

  ANALYSIS

  Petitions to Approve Minor’s Compromise

  “[T]he protective role the court generally assumes in cases involving minors [is] . . . to assure that whatever is done is in the minor's best interests. The court functions similarly in approving a minor's compromise where its primary concern is whether the compromise is sufficient to provide for the minor's injuries, care and treatment.” Goldberg v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.

  Petitioners Violeta Ventura, as parent and guardian ad litem of the minor claimant Steven Cortez (age 10) seeks approval of the minors’ compromise with Defendants.

  FORM MC-350 (REV. JANUARY 1, 2011):

  Each of the Petitions were verified by the Petitioners and presented on a fully completed mandatory Judicial Council Form MC-350. CRC Rule 7.950.

  SETTLEMENT:

  Pursuant to the settlement with Defendants LAUSD, Jose Palomera and Ruth Castillo, the minor claimant will receive $100,000, less $4,928.00 in medical expenses, $25,000 in attorney’s fees, $4,222.24 in expenses, leaving a balance of $65,849.76. The balance of the proceeds are to be deposited in an insured account subject to withdrawal only upon authorization of the Court. Petition, ¶ 9.b(2); attachment 19b(2).

  The amount of the recovery appears to be justified due to the fact that Plaintiff is an intellectually challenged 10-year old who was violently attacked in a classroom, suffered closed head injury, abrasion to scalp and emotional and psychological injuries. Petition, ¶¶ 6-7. Notably, the defendant, Keyden King, who committed the assault and battery against claimant, is not among these settling defendants.

  ATTORNEY’S FEES:

  The retained attorney’s information has been disclosed as required by CRC Rule 7.951. Petition, ¶ 18.b. There is an agreement for services provided in connection with the underlying claim. Petitions, ¶ 18.a.2. A copy of the agreement was attached to the Petition as required by CRC Rule 7.951(6). Petition, Exh. A.

  Petitioner’s counsel is seeking to recover $25,000 in attorney fees which represents 25% of the claimant’s recovery before deductions. Petition, ¶ 14.a. Because counsel is seeking to recover attorney’s fees, a declaration is required by CRC Rule 7.955(c) addressing the factors listed in Rule 7.955(b). Here, counsel has not submitted a declaration which addresses the factors listed in Rule 7.955(b).

  MEDICAL BILLS:

  $4,928.00 will be paid for full satisfaction of medical service provider liens. Petition, ¶ 13.b(5).

  COSTS:

  $4,222.2. Petition, ¶ 14.b; Exhs. B – E. The costs listed appear to properly be charged against the client.

  AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO MINOR

  The net amount to be paid to the minor is $65,849.76. Petition, ¶ 17.f.

  COURT APPEARANCE

  CRC 7.952 requires attendance by the petitioner and claimant unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance. The court determines that for good cause, a personal appearance is not required.

  PROGNOSIS

  The claimant has not recovered completely from the effects of the injuries, including emotional trauma. Petition, ¶ 9.b.

  DISPOSITION OF BALANCE OF PROCEEDS

  The proceeds will be placed in an insured account at a financial institution subject to withdrawal only upon the authorization of the court. Petition, ¶ 19.b(2).

  Here, in light of the nature of the injuries suffered by the minor Plaintiff, the Court finds the settlement to be fair and adequate as to minor claimant.

  However, the hearing on the petition for approval of minor’s compromise is CONTINUED to December 19, 2019 for submission of a supplemental declaration addressing

  the factors listed in Rule 7.955(b) for recovery of attorney’s fees. Supplemental declaration is due December 12, 2019.