TIANNI S JONES VS ORLANDO H PILE ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****3238 Hearing Date: April 27, 2022 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

This action arises out of a vehicle collision between Plaintiff and Defendants. On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff Tianni Jones filed a Complaint against Orlando H. Pile, Deondra D. Johnson, Orlando H. Pile, M.D., a Medical Corporation, and Does 1 through 50 (collectively “Defendants”) for 1) motor vehicle, 2) general negligence, 3) intentional tort, and 4) professional negligence/medical malpractice. In terms of the fourth cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant ORLANDO H. PILE and ORLANDO H. PILE, M.D., a professional medical corporation, so negligently, carelessly, recklessly, and wantonly treated, provided medical care, information, monitoring, examination, and other medical services, so as to directly and proximately cause physical harm to TIANNI S. JONES. Jones also alleges that the two defendants failed to properly evaluate and obtain consent prior to properly performing any treatment. See Complaint at pg. 7.

On June 28, 2019, Orlando H. Pile filed a Cross-Complaint against Deondra D. Johnson for 1) complete equitable indemnification, 2) equitable apportionment, and 3) declaratory relief.

Plaintiff, at this time, moves for an order terminating the Order of Appointment of Joanna Norton as the Guardian ad Litem of Plaintiff Tianni S. Jones on the grounds that Plaintiff is no longer an incapacitated adult.

2. Motion Terminating the Order of Appointment of Joanna Norton as the Guardian ad Litem of Plaintiff Tianni S Jones

a. Legal Standard

Although Plaintiff makes reference to the Probate Code in her motion, the court understands that the Guardian ad Litem was appointed in this case pursuant to the Order of April 15, 2019, for the purpose of representing Plaintiff’s interest in the suit. Plaintiff’s counsel should be present and prepared to address this at the time of the hearing. Such Guardian ad Litems are appointed by and subject to supervision of the trial court, and the trial court can remove a guardian on its own motion or at a party’s request. (McClintock v. West (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 540, 552.) The Court has inherent authority to remove a Guardian ad Litem. (Golin v. Allenby (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 616, 643-44.)

b. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks the termination of the appointment because Plaintiff is no longer incapacitated and is now able to make decisions for herself. In Matthew Singer’s Declaration, the plaintiff’s attorney explained that “[a]s Plaintiff has awaited the approval of this settlement, she has seen miraculous recovery and is no longer incapacitated.” See Singer’s Decl. at para. 4. Based on the clinical psychologist’s declaration, “Ms. Tianni S. Jones is competent to make her own decisions regarding her health, education, and her finances; (2) Joanna Norton, Ms. Jones mother, is an excellent resource and sounding board for Ms. Jones; (3) Ms. Jones is not in need of a court-appointed conservator; and ( 4) with guidance from her mother, Ms. Jones is capable of making sound decisions regarding her health, education, and finances.” See Falke’s Declaration, at Exhibit B, at para. 4. In Plaintiff’s Declaration, Plaintiff similarly declares that she can make decisions for herself, including financial decisions. See Plaintiff’s Motion to Terminate, Exhibit A at para. 3.

Because the declarations show that Plaintiff can competently make decisions without Guardian ad Litem, this motion is GRANTED.

Moving Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 27^th day of April, 2022

Case Number: ****3238 Hearing Date: February 9, 2022 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Tianni S. Jones (“Jones”), an incapacitated adult by and through her guardian ad litem, Joanna Norton (“Norton”), filed this action against Defendants, Orlando H. Pile, Orlando H. Pile, M.D., a professional medical corporation, and Deondra D. Johnson for damages arising out of an automobile accident.

On January 26, 2022, the court heard a Petition to Confirm Minor’s Compromise concerning Jones filed by Norton. The petition provided that as a result of the accident, Claimant suffered quadriplegia, cognitive problems, including memory and information processing, depression, anger, agitation, and limited use of hands and fingers and pain.

On January 11, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a declaration in support of the petition for approval of compromise. Counsel provides in pertinent part:

3. As the Court is aware, at the commencement of Ms. Jones’ action she was under a temporary disability as a result of her injuries that adversely impacted her capacity. As such, appointment of a Guardian ad Litem was deemed necessary. However, during the pendency of the proceedings on her civil claims, Ms. Jones’ circumstances markedly improved to the point where her capacity has been restored, as confirmed by Roberta L. Falke, Ph.D., a Doctor of Clinical Psychology. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution and because the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem early in the proceedings set-up an expectation that any resolution of Ms. Jones’ claims would be reviewed and approved by the Court, counsel believed it would be prudent to submit the pending Petition for Approval of Compromise of Disputed Claim. Probate Code 3613 allows for a Petition for Approval of Compromise to be filed on behalf of a disabled adult with capacity so long as the disabled adult consents to the proceeding. Such is exactly the case before the Court on behalf of Ms. Jones. Counsel secured Ms. Jones’ consent as evidenced by her signature of line 21 of the petition filed on September 14, 2021.

4. Consistent with Ms. Jones’ restored capacity, the Petition for Comprise not only asks the Court to approve the terms of Ms. Jones’ settlement, but also to acknowledge and confirm that the net settlement proceeds will be transferred to the existing Tianni Jones Special Needs Trust, created by Ms. Jones as authorized by law. For a discussion of the legal authority supporting the valid establishment of the Trust by Ms. Jones outside of these proceedings and explanation of why the trust need not be established by the Court or subject to the requirements of California Rule of Court 7.903, I would direct the Court to the Declaration of Stephen W. Dale in Support of Petition for Approval of Compromise filed on September 14, 2021, a courtesy copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

5. Considering the above, it is requested that the Court approve the Petition for Approval of Compromise and allow transfer of the net settlement proceeds to the Tianni Jones Special Needs Trust.

(Dale Decl. 3-5.)

After conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding Jones’ competency, the court took the petition off calendar and ordered counsel to submit to the court declarations from Plaintiff and the relevant doctor under penalty of perjury five days prior to the continued hearing date. The court then set the instant Motion for Determination of Competency for February 9, 2022.

However, as February 7, 2022, the court has not received any such declarations from Plaintiff’s counsel. Therefore, the court takes the matter off-calendar.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 9^th day of February 2022

Case Number: ****3238 Hearing Date: January 5, 2022 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Tianni S. Jones (“Claimant”), an incapacitated adult by and through her guardian ad litem, Joanna Norton (“Petitioner”), filed this action against Defendants, Orlando H. Pile, Orlando H. Pile, M.D., a professional medical corporation, and Deondra D. Johnson for damages arising out of an automobile accident. As a result of the accident, Claimant suffered quadriplegia, cognitive problems, including memory and information processing, depression, anger, agitation, and limited use of hands and fingers and pain. Claimant has not recovered completely as many of the injuries are permanent.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for approval of compromise of claim on September 14, 2021, setting it for hearing on October 7, 2021. This is the fifth petition. On July 14, 2021, the court denied a prior petition after noting various defects with the attached Special Needs Trust (“SNT”). (Min. Order, July 14, 2021.)

At the October 7, 2021, hearing the court continued the matter after noting a probate attorney from the court’s Probate Legal Department required more time to review the trust documents, and it “set a non-appearance hearing regarding the filing of the new amended petition with special needs trust, to give the probate attorneys time for review.” (Min. Order Oct. 7, 2021.) The non-appearance hearing was set for December 3, 2021, and at this hearing, the court reviewed the file and found no amended Petition for Compromise of Minor’s Claim with Special Needs Trust had been filed. (Min. Order Dec. 3, 2021.) As of December 27, 2021, nothing further concerning the SNT or an amended petition has been filed.

Therefore, the hearing on the petition to approve minor’s compromise is taken off-calendar.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 5^th day of January 2022

b'

Case Number: ****3238 Hearing Date: October 7, 2021 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Tianni S. Jones (“Claimant”), an incapacitated adult by and through her guardian ad litem, Joanna Norton (“Petitioner”), filed this action against Defendants, Orlando H. Pile, Orlando H. Pile, M.D., a professional medical corporation, and Deondra D. Johnson for damages arising out of an automobile accident. As a result of the accident, Claimant suffered quadriplegia, cognitive problems, including memory and information processing, depression, anger, agitation, and limited use of hands and fingers and pain. Claimant has not recovered completely as many of the injuries are permanent.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for approval of compromise of claim on September 14, 2021. This is the fifth petition.

Petitioner proposes to transfer the settlement proceeds to the trustee of a settlement trust. A probate attorney from the court’s Probate Legal Department requires more time to review the trust documents. Therefore, the hearing on this matter will be continued to ____________________.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 7^th day of October, 2021

b'

Case Number: ****3238 Hearing Date: September 15, 2021 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Tianni S. Jones (“Claimant”), an incapacitated adult by and through her guardian ad litem, Joanna Norton (“Petitioner”), filed this action against Defendants, Orlando H. Pile, Orlando H. Pile, M.D., a professional medical corporation, and Deondra D. Johnson for damages arising out of an automobile accident. As a result of the accident, Claimant suffered quadriplegia, cognitive problems, including memory and information processing, depression, anger, agitation, and limited use of hands and fingers and pain. Claimant has not recovered completely as many of the injuries are permanent.

Petitioner filed a petition for approval of compromise of claim on June 4, 2021, which was the fourth petition. The matter was last heard on July 14, 2021, where the court issued the following:

Plaintiff, by and through her guardian ad litem and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims with Defendant for the total amount of $1,000,000.00. If the settlement is approved, $112,115.85 will be used for medical expenses, $330,000.00 for attorneys’ fees, and $20,229.76 will be used for costs. The net balance of $537,654.39 will be paid or transferred to the trustee of a special needs trust (“SNT”).

The Court has reviewed the settlement and finds it is fair and reasonable. The Court also finds the attorneys’ fees fair and reasonable, as they amount to 33% of the settlement amount.

Petitioner proposes to transfer the settlement proceeds to the trustee of a special needs trust. The probate attorney has reviewed the proposed SNT, and the Court notes the following concerning the SNT attached to the petition:

At Attachment 18(b)(4) to the Petition to Approve Compromise, petitioner provides a Certification of Trust and the SNT instrument (court’s pdf at pp. 13 et. seq.). The SNT instrument is the same that was attached to prior petitions and noted by the court as defective in prior rulings. Specifically, on 5/12/21 this court issued a minute order denying the prior petition without prejudice and pointing out how, among other things, the SNT instrument failed to meet the requirements of law. Petitioner then filed the current petition on 6/4/21, merely attaching the same defective SNT instrument that had been executed in January without court approval.

As was pointed out before the prior hearing on the prior petition, the Trust Certification and SNT instrument show that this trust already has been executed and notarized to establish the trust, with nominal seed money used to open the funding of the SNT. This is highly improper because the current petition should seek to create and fund the trust. In its 5/12/21 minute order, the court “reiterate[d] the signed SNT is invalid because it has not been approved by the court and state, and the SNT should not be funded and that the SNT trustee should not take any actions in the capacity as trustee or spend SNT funds.” The court may want to again make that issue clear. This issue is even more problematic because the SNT instrument remains very defective as will be discussed below and therefore an entirely new SNT instrument will be needed.

A cornerstone requirement of an SNT instrument is that it have a “payback provision” whereby any trust assets remaining upon termination of the SNT by death of the beneficiary (or any other reason), the remaining trust assets shall be “paid back” to the state to the extent of benefits received by the beneficiary. The idea is that the assets in a SNT are deemed to be exempt from counting toward the $2,000 asset limit for purposes of calculating benefits eligibility, but then that fiction ends upon beneficiary’s death and the state recovers those funds before they are distributed to beneficiary’s heirs. The existence of this payback provision is the most basic requirement of a SNT instrument. Without that provision, the SNT beneficiary would almost immediately lose benefits eligibility. Put another way, the SNT assets would not qualify as exempt and instead they would be counted toward beneficiary’s $2,000 asset limit. The SNT instrument here contains adequate payback provisions in Article Four of the proposed SNT (court’s pdf at pp. 26-27.)

The main requirements for court created or funded trusts are set forth at California Rules of Court (CRC), Rule 7.903(c). The proposed SNT instrument does not meet many of those requirements, including those set forth below, identified subsection:

(c)(2) Prohibit modification or revocation without court approval; (the SNT instrument allows modification without court approval in multiple places including Sections 1.02 and 6.06(d))

(c)(3) Clearly identify the trustee and any other person with authority to direct the trustee to make disbursements;

(c)(4) Prohibit investments by the trustee other than those permitted under Probate Code section 2574;

(c)(5) Require persons identified in (3) to post bond in the amount required under Probate Code section 2320 et seq.;

(c)(6) Require the trustee to file accounts and reports for court approval in the manner and frequency required by Probate Code sections 1060 et seq. and 2620 et seq.;

(c)(7) Require court approval of changes in trustees and a court order appointing any successor trustee; and

(c)(8) Require compensation of the trustee, the members of any advisory committee, or the attorney for the trustee, to be in just and reasonable amounts that must be fixed and allowed by the court. The instrument may provide for periodic payments of compensation on account, subject to the requirements of Probate Code section 2643 and rule 7.755.

The SNT instrument also does not meet the requirements of LASC Rule 4.116(b), including the following, identified by subsection:

(b)(2) Any purchase of a personal residence for a beneficiary may be made only if authorized by the court pursuant to the rules applicable to conservatorships and guardianships. (See Prob. Code, ; 2571.);

(b)(3) Any sale of a personal residence of the beneficiary may be made only if authorized by the court pursuant to the rules applicable to conservatorships and guardianships. (Prob. Code, ; 2540(b).) Such sales must be returned to court for confirmation. (See Prob. Code, ; 10300 et seq.); and

(b)(4) The trustee may not borrow money, lend money, give security, lease, convey, or exchange any property of the estate without prior authorization of the court. (Prob. Code, ; 2550.)

Additional concerns regarding the SNT instrument:

The SNT instrument contains broad provisions for a trust Protector throughout Article Six. (Court’s pdf at pp. 29-32.). Typically, those are not necessary or appropriate in an SNT because the SNT trustee will administer the trust and look out for the plaintiff/beneficiary’s best interests. A Trust Protector will just add additional cost and complexity to the trust administration. The court requires that all Trust Protector provisions be removed from the SNT instrument.

There are limitations of liability in the SNT instrument that limit the trustee’s liability to instances of gross negligence, willful neglect, or unlawful act. (See, e.g., Sections 5.02 and 6.05.) Those provisions are unadvisable and typically disallowed by a court approving a trust instrument. The court requires removal of all limitations of trustee liability.

The SNT instrument generally does not look and function like a SNT instrument. It looks, instead, like a testamentary trust that has been modified to have some SNT language and terms, without complete success. A small but prime example is the definition of Special Needs at Section 7.03(c) which is not accurate nor ever seen in that form in a SNT instrument.

The SNT contains objectionable language to the extent it allows for additions to trust assets at any time without court approval (Section 1.03). Trust asset funding must be limited to an amount reasonably necessary to meet the special needs of the trust beneficiary, as regulated by Probate Code section 3604, subsection (b)(3).

Furthermore, though the SNT instrument does not indicate the trustee, the Certification of Trust provided with the briefing indicates that petitioner, Joanna Norton (parent/GAL), is the initial trustee.

Normally, bond must be required of a trustee unless they are a corporate fiduciary. (California Rules of Court, Rule 7.903(c)(5), Probate Code section 2320.) The proposed trustee would not meet that requirement and bond will be required. Bond is not calculated in the briefing. A proper calculation of bond is $594,000 based upon the amount of proposed SNT funding plus anticipated investment returns and an additional amount required for costs of recovery. (CRC Rule 7.207(b).) The court will require $594,000 bond when ready to approve the SNT and petition.

When seeking approval of a SNT, notice of the hearing and service of the petition must be made upon three state agencies including the Dept. of Mental Health, Dept. of Developmental Services, and Dept. of Health Care Services. (Probate Code sections 3602(f), 3611(c).) Proofs of service on file in this case do not indicate notice to the state agencies for this petition and the petition should be continued for proper notice. Notice of hearing with proof of service of the briefs will need to be 15 days by mail, not extended for mailing.

Further, Petitioner did not make a proposed order available for review. The order normally consists of the Judicial Council order on the compromise petition, with attachment 8b(2) to address the SNT issues.

Based on the foregoing, the court continues the petition for Petitioner [to provide] notice of hearing with proof of service to the state agencies. The SNT instrument is NOT ready for approval. Again, the current executed SNT is invalid and a new SNT is required, and the court requires the proposed order.

(Min. Order, July 14, 2021.) The court then continued the hearing to September 15, 2021, for Counsel to submit an amended petition and perfect the SNT. On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed proof of service of Notice of Hearing re: Petition on the Dept. of Mental Health, Dept. of Developmental Services, and Dept. of Health Care Services.

However, as of September 9, 2021, Petitioner has not filed an amended petition or additional documents concerning the SNT as ordered. Therefore, the hearing on the petition to approve minor’s compromise is taken off-calendar.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 15^th day of September, 2021

b'

Case Number: ****3238 Hearing Date: July 14, 2021 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Tianni S. Jones (“Claimant”), an incapacitated adult by and through her guardian ad litem, Joanna Norton (“Petitioner”), filed this action against Defendants, Orlando H. Pile, Orlando H. Pile, M.D., a professional medical corporation, and Deondra D. Johnson for damages arising out of an automobile accident. As a result of the accident, Claimant suffered quadriplegia, cognitive problems, including memory and information processing, depression, anger, agitation, and limited use of hands and fingers and pain. Claimant has not recovered completely as many of the injuries are permanent.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for approval of compromise of claim on June 4, 2021. This is the fourth petition.

Plaintiff, by and through her guardian ad litem and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims with Defendant for the total amount of $1,000,000.00. If the settlement is approved, $112,115.85 will be used for medical expenses, $330,000.00 for attorneys’ fees, and $20,229.76 will be used for costs. The net balance of $537,654.39 will be paid or transferred to the trustee of a special needs trust (“SNT”).

The Court has reviewed the settlement and finds it is fair and reasonable. The Court also finds the attorneys’ fees fair and reasonable, as they amount to 33% of the settlement amount.

Petitioner proposes to transfer the settlement proceeds to the trustee of a special needs trust. The probate attorney has reviewed the proposed SNT, and the Court will discuss the probate attorney’s notes with Counsel at the time of the hearing.

Pursuant to CRC 7.952, unless appearance is excused, Plaintiff and Petitioner must appear and testify to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court grants the petition. The Court finds Plaintiff’s condition is such that the need for her personal appearance is excused. Petitioner must appear at the hearing and testify to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court will grant the petition.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 14^th day of July, 2021

Case Number: ****3238    Hearing Date: May 12, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Tianni S. Jones (“Claimant”), an incapacitated adult by and through her guardian ad litem, Joanna Norton (“Petitioner”), filed this action against Defendants, Orlando H. Pile, Orlando H. Pile, M.D., a professional medical corporation, and Deondra D. Johnson for damages arising out of an automobile accident. As a result of the accident, Claimant suffered quadriplegia, cognitive problems, including memory and information processing, depression, anger, agitation, and limited use of hands and fingers and pain. Claimant has not recovered completely as many of the injuries are permanent.

Plaintiff, by and through her guardian ad litem and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims with Defendant for the total amount of $1,000,000.00. If the settlement is approved, $112,115.85 will be used for medical expenses, $400,000.00 for attorneys’ fees, and $19,223.41 will be used for costs. The net balance of $468,660.74 will be paid or transferred to the trustee of a special needs trust (“SNT”).

Petitioner’s second petition was heard on 2/18/21, where the court issued an order denying and continuing the motion to 3/18/21. (Min. Order 2/18/21.) The court outlined the defects and ordered Petitioner to file new documents with each defect cured. Moreover, the court noted the following concerning the Special Needs Trust (SNT) attached to the petition filed 2/3/21:

The Special Needs Trust (SNT) instrument attached to the petition filed on 2/3/21 does not meet many of the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 7.903, subsection (c), including:

• Subsection (c)(2) which prohibits modification or revocation of the trust instrument without court approval. Section 6.06 of the SNT instrument, among other sections, allows for modifications without court approval.

• Subsection (c)(4) which prohibits investments by the trust except for those permitted by Probate Code section 2574. Section 5.01 of the SNT instrument does not contain this limitation and provides for broader investment powers.

• Subsection (c)(5) which requires trustee to post bond in the amount required by Probate Code section 2320 et. seq. Section 6.04 of the SNT instrument states that no bond shall be required unless ordered by the court.

• Subsection (c)(6) which requires trustee to file accounts for court approval. Section 5.04 of the SNT instrument does not meet that standard.

• Subsection (c)(7) requires court approval of changes in trustee and a court order appointing the successor trustee. Various sections of the SNT instrument violate this requirement, including Section 6.06 which allows the Trust Protector to appoint a successor trustee without court approval.

• Subsection (c)(8) requires that compensation of the trustee, advisory committees, and counsel shall be approved by the court. This requirement is violated by several sections in the SNT instrument which allow for such compensation to be made without court approval. See, for example, Section 6.03 allowing for trustee compensation without court approval and Section 6.06(g) allowing for compensation to the Trust Protector without court approval.

The SNT instrument also fails to comply with the requirements of LASC Rule 4.116, subjection (b), which requires that the trust instrument include:

(1) Where the trustee is a trust company (as defined in Financial Code section 107) and it petitions for fees, the petition must include a complete disclosure of any fees paid to a fiduciary and/or any affiliate as required by Probate Code section 16015 and Financial Code section 1561.1;

(2) Any purchase of a personal residence for a beneficiary may be made only if authorized by the court pursuant to the rules applicable to conservatorships and guardianships. (See Prob. Code, ; 2571.);

(3) Any sale of a personal residence of the beneficiary may be made only if authorized by the court pursuant to the rules applicable to conservatorships and guardianships. (Prob. Code, ; 2540(b).) Such sales must be returned to court for confirmation. (See Prob. Code, ; 10300 et seq.); and

(4) The trustee may not borrow money, lend money, give security, lease, convey, or exchange any property of the estate without prior authorization of the court. (Prob Code, ; 2550.)

The SNT also contains objectionable language to the extent it allows for additions to trust assets at any time without court approval (Section 1.03). Trust asset funding must be limited to an amount reasonably necessary to meet the special needs of the trust beneficiary, as regulated by Probate Code section 3604, subsection (b)(3).

Also, Section 6.05 provides a hold harmless provision that excuses the SNT trustee from liability except for gross negligence, willful neglect, or unlawful act. This is not a proper standard for the trustee.

The court reiterates the signed SNT is invalid because it has not been approved by the court and state, and the SNT should not be funded and that the SNT trustee should not take any actions in the capacity as trustee or spend SNT funds.

If and when Petitioner resubmits a petition, all of the above defects must cured.

(Min. Order 3/18/21.)

On 4/20/21, Petitioner filed the instant petition. This is the third petition. The petition is denied without prejudice for the following reason:

• Petitioner requests approximately 40% of the Claimant’s settlement be used for attorney’s fees. The court is not satisfied the efforts in this case justify such a high fee. The court asks counsel to reduce the fee in connection with an amended petition to 33%.

  Additionally, Petitioner proposes to transfer the settlement proceeds to the trustee of a special needs trust. The probate attorney requires additional time to review the terms of the special needs trust and ensure it is in order before the petition can be granted. Therefore, the petition will be continued on this ground as well.

  Pursuant to CRC 7.952, unless appearance is excused, Plaintiff and Petitioner must appear and testify to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court grants the petition. The Court finds Plaintiff’s condition is such that the need for her personal appearance is excused. Petitioner must appear at the hearing and testify to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court will grant the petition.

  Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

  Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

  Dated this 12^th day of May, 2021

Case Number: ****3238    Hearing Date: April 19, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Tianni S. Jones (“Claimant”), an incapacitated adult by and through her guardian ad litem, Joanna Norton (“Petitioner”), filed this action against Defendants, Orlando H. Pile, Orlando H. Pile, M.D., a professional medical corporation, and Deondra D. Johnson for damages arising out of an automobile accident. As a result of the accident, Claimant suffered quadriplegia, cognitive problems, including memory and information processing, depression, anger, agitation, and limited use of hands and fingers and pain. Claimant has not recovered completely as many of the injuries are permanent.

Plaintiff, by and through her guardian ad litem and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims with Defendant for the total amount of $1,000,000.00. If the settlement is approved, $261,192.12 will be used for medical expenses, $400,000.00 for attorneys’ fees, and $17,488.73 will be used for costs. The net balance of $321,319.14 will be paid or transferred to the trustee of a special needs trust (“SNT”).

Petitioner’s second petition was heard on 2/18/21, where the court issued an order denying and continuing the motion to 3/18/21. (Min. Order 2/18/21.) The court outlined the defects and ordered Petitioner to file new documents with each defect cured. However, Petitioner did not file a new petition or documents prior to the 3/18/21 hearing, and thus, the hearing on the petition to confirm compromise was taken off-calendar. (Min. Order 3/18/21.)

Thereafter, on 3/24/21, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to Specially Set a Hearing on Petition for Approval of Compromise, which the court granted and set the instant hearing on Petition to Confirm Compromise for 4/19/21. However, as of 4/14/21, the court again has not received a new petition or documents. Therefore, the hearing on petition to confirm compromise is off-calendar.

Moreover, the court notes the following concerning the Special Needs Trust (SNT) attached to the petition filed 2/3/21:

The Special Needs Trust (SNT) instrument attached to the petition filed on 2/3/21 does not meet many of the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 7.903, subsection (c), including:

• Subsection (c)(2) which prohibits modification or revocation of the trust instrument without court approval. Section 6.06 of the SNT instrument, among other sections, allows for modifications without court approval.

• Subsection (c)(4) which prohibits investments by the trust except for those permitted by Probate Code section 2574. Section 5.01 of the SNT instrument does not contain this limitation and provides for broader investment powers.

• Subsection (c)(5) which requires trustee to post bond in the amount required by Probate Code section 2320 et. seq. Section 6.04 of the SNT instrument states that no bond shall be required unless ordered by the court.

• Subsection (c)(6) which requires trustee to file accounts for court approval. Section 5.04 of the SNT instrument does not meet that standard.

• Subsection (c)(7) requires court approval of changes in trustee and a court order appointing the successor trustee. Various sections of the SNT instrument violate this requirement, including Section 6.06 which allows the Trust Protector to appoint a successor trustee without court approval.

• Subsection (c)(8) requires that compensation of the trustee, advisory committees, and counsel shall be approved by the court. This requirement is violated by several sections in the SNT instrument which allow for such compensation to be made without court approval. See, for example, Section 6.03 allowing for trustee compensation without court approval and Section 6.06(g) allowing for compensation to the Trust Protector without court approval.

The SNT instrument also fails to comply with the requirements of LASC Rule 4.116, subjection (b), which requires that the trust instrument include:

(1) Where the trustee is a trust company (as defined in Financial Code section 107) and it petitions for fees, the petition must include a complete disclosure of any fees paid to a fiduciary and/or any affiliate as required by Probate Code section 16015 and Financial Code section 1561.1;

(2) Any purchase of a personal residence for a beneficiary may be made only if authorized by the court pursuant to the rules applicable to conservatorships and guardianships. (See Prob. Code, ; 2571.);

(3) Any sale of a personal residence of the beneficiary may be made only if authorized by the court pursuant to the rules applicable to conservatorships and guardianships. (Prob. Code, ; 2540(b).) Such sales must be returned to court for confirmation. (See Prob. Code, ; 10300 et seq.); and

(4) The trustee may not borrow money, lend money, give security, lease, convey, or exchange any property of the estate without prior authorization of the court. (Prob Code, ; 2550.)

The SNT also contains objectionable language to the extent it allows for additions to trust assets at any time without court approval (Section 1.03). Trust asset funding must be limited to an amount reasonably necessary to meet the special needs of the trust beneficiary, as regulated by Probate Code section 3604, subsection (b)(3).

Also, Section 6.05 provides a hold harmless provision that excuses the SNT trustee from liability except for gross negligence, willful neglect, or unlawful act. This is not a proper standard for the trustee.

The court reiterates the signed SNT is invalid because it has not been approved by the court and state, and the SNT should not be funded and that the SNT trustee should not take any actions in the capacity as trustee or spend SNT funds.

If and when Petitioner resubmits a petition, all of the above defects must cured.

The petition is taken off-calendar.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 19^th day of April, 2021

Case Number: ****3238    Hearing Date: March 18, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Tianni S. Jones (“Claimant”), an incapacitated adult by and through her guardian ad litem, Joanna Norton (“Petitioner”), filed this action against Defendants, Orlando H. Pile, Orlando H. Pile, M.D., a professional medical corporation, and Deondra D. Johnson for damages arising out of an automobile accident. As a result of the accident, Claimant suffered quadriplegia, cognitive problems, including memory and information processing, depression, anger, agitation, and limited use of hands and fingers and pain. Claimant has not recovered completely as many of the injuries are permanent.

Plaintiff, by and through her guardian ad litem and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims with Defendant for the total amount of $1,000,000.00. If the settlement is approved, $261,192.12 will be used for medical expenses, $400,000.00 for attorneys’ fees, and $17,488.73 will be used for costs. The net balance of $321,319.14 will be paid or transferred to the trustee of a special needs trust (“SNT”).

Petitioner’s second petition was heard on 2/18/21, where the court issued and order denying and continuing the motion to 3/18/21. (Min. Order 2/18/21.) The court outlined the defects and ordered Petitioner to file new documents with each defect cured. However, as of 3/15/21, the court has not received a new petition or documents. Therefore, the hearing on the petition to confirm compromise is taken off-calendar.

Moreover, the court notes the following concerning the Special Needs Trust (SNT) attached to the petition filed 2/3/21:

The Special Needs Trust (SNT) instrument attached to the petition filed on 2/3/21 does not meet many of the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 7.903, subsection (c), including:

• Subsection (c)(2) which prohibits modification or revocation of the trust instrument without court approval. Section 6.06 of the SNT instrument, among other sections, allows for modifications without court approval.

• Subsection (c)(4) which prohibits investments by the trust except for those permitted by Probate Code section 2574. Section 5.01 of the SNT instrument does not contain this limitation and provides for broader investment powers.

• Subsection (c)(5) which requires trustee to post bond in the amount required by Probate Code section 2320 et. seq. Section 6.04 of the SNT instrument states that no bond shall be required unless ordered by the court.

• Subsection (c)(6) which requires trustee to file accounts for court approval. Section 5.04 of the SNT instrument does not meet that standard.

• Subsection (c)(7) requires court approval of changes in trustee and a court order appointing the successor trustee. Various sections of the SNT instrument violate this requirement, including Section 6.06 which allows the Trust Protector to appoint a successor trustee without court approval.

• Subsection (c)(8) requires that compensation of the trustee, advisory committees, and counsel shall be approved by the court. This requirement is violated by several sections in the SNT instrument which allow for such compensation to be made without court approval. See, for example, Section 6.03 allowing for trustee compensation without court approval and Section 6.06(g) allowing for compensation to the Trust Protector without court approval.

The SNT instrument also fails to comply with the requirements of LASC Rule 4.116, subjection (b), which requires that the trust instrument include:

(1) Where the trustee is a trust company (as defined in Financial Code section 107) and it petitions for fees, the petition must include a complete disclosure of any fees paid to a fiduciary and/or any affiliate as required by Probate Code section 16015 and Financial Code section 1561.1;

(2) Any purchase of a personal residence for a beneficiary may be made only if authorized by the court pursuant to the rules applicable to conservatorships and guardianships. (See Prob. Code, ; 2571.);

(3) Any sale of a personal residence of the beneficiary may be made only if authorized by the court pursuant to the rules applicable to conservatorships and guardianships. (Prob. Code, ; 2540(b).) Such sales must be returned to court for confirmation. (See Prob. Code, ; 10300 et seq.); and

(4) The trustee may not borrow money, lend money, give security, lease, convey, or exchange any property of the estate without prior authorization of the court. (Prob Code, ; 2550.)

The SNT also contains objectionable language to the extent it allows for additions to trust assets at any time without court approval (Section 1.03). Trust asset funding must be limited to an amount reasonably necessary to meet the special needs of the trust beneficiary, as regulated by Probate Code section 3604, subsection (b)(3).

Also, Section 6.05 provides a hold harmless provision that excuses the SNT trustee from liability except for gross negligence, willful neglect, or unlawful act. This is not a proper standard for the trustee.

The court reiterates the signed SNT is invalid because it has not been approved by the court and state, and the SNT should not be funded and that the SNT trustee should not take any actions in the capacity as trustee or spend SNT funds.

If and when Petitioner resubmits a petition, all of the above defects must cured.

The petition is taken off-calendar.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 18^th day of March, 2021

Case Number: ****3238    Hearing Date: February 18, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Tianni S. Jones (“Claimant”), an incapacitated adult by and through her guardian ad litem, Joanna Norton (“Petitioner”), filed this action against Defendants, Orlando H. Pile, Orland H. Pile, M.D., a professional medical corporation, and Deondra D. Johnson for damages arising out of an automobile accident. As a result of the accident, Claimant suffered quadriplegia, cognitive problems, including memory and information processing, depression, anger, agitation, and limited use of hands and fingers and pain. Claimant has not recovered completely since many of the injuries are permanent.

Plaintiff, by and through her guardian ad litem and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims with Defendant for the total amount of $1,000,000.00. If the settlement is approved, $261,192.12 will be used for medical expenses, $400,000.00 for attorneys’ fees, and $17,488.73 will be used for costs. The net balance of $321,319.14 will be paid or transferred to the trustee of a special needs trust (“SNT”).

This is Petitioner’s second petition. The petition was previously denied without prejudice for the following reasons; each will be discussed in turn:

• Petitioner requests approximately 40% of the Claimant’s settlement be used for attorney’s fees. The court is not satisfied the efforts in this case justify such a high fee. The court asks counsel to reduce the fee in connection with an amended petition, or to submit a declaration sufficiently detailing the efforts expended in this case justifying the request. In particular, an amended declaration should discuss, in detail, the factors listed in California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b).

  • Counsel failed to attach a declaration explaining the high fee request. (See para. 14(a).) The court is not satisfied the efforts in this case justify such a high fee and again asks counsel to reduce the fee in connection with an amended petition, or to submit a declaration sufficiently detailing the efforts expended in this case justifying the request.

• While Petitioner states that $261,192.13 will be used for medical expenses in ; 17b, Petitioner failed to state the total amount to paid as medical expenses in ; 13a(2).

  • This defect remains the same.

• If funds are distributed to a special needs trust, the probate department must review the terms of the trust. “When the settlement proposes the establishment of a special needs or other trust as provided in Probate Code sections 3600 to 3612, the terms of the proposed trust must be reviewed by the Probate Department. The terms of the trust must include the provisions required in California Rules of Court, rule 7.903, and Local Rule 4.116.” (L.A. County Super. Ct. R 4.115(c).) Plaintiff’s attachment 19b(4), which is supposed to set forth the terms of the proposed trust, merely states Claimant’s name and address. The actual terms of the trust, however, are not provided. Petitioner must re-file the petition and include the terms of the proposed trust for probate court review.

  • Petitioner included the terms of the trust with the instant petition as Attachment 19b(4). However, notice of the petition is insufficient. When seeking approval of a SNT, service must be made upon three state agencies including the Dept. of Mental Health, Dept. of Developmental Services, and Dept. of Health Care Services. (Probate Code ; 3611(c).) These is no proof of service apparent in the file indicating service of this petition on those entities. Moreover, the instant petition shows the SNT has already been executed. This is improper because the court has not yet reviewed or approved the SNT. Execution of the SNT should not happen until the court order. The court notes, thus, the SNT is not valid, it should not be funded and the trustee should not yet take actions in that capacity or spend SNT funds until court approval of the SNT and due execution, plus posting of any required bond.

• The court cannot locate the necessary form MC-351, which must be lodged in order for the court to process the petition. Petitioner must ensure the form is lodged in connection with an amended petition.

  • While Petitioner submitted the instant amended petition on 2/3/21, the court cannot locate form MC-351.

    Therefore, the hearing on this matter will be continued to __________________, 2021. Petitioner must file new documents with each of these defects cured.

    Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

    Dated this 18^th day of February, 2021

Case Number: ****3238    Hearing Date: December 01, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Tianni S. Jones (“Claimant”), an incapacitated adult by and through her guardian ad litem, Joanna Norton (“Petitioner”), filed this action against Defendants, Orlando H. Pile, Orland H. Pile, M.D., a professional medical corporation, and Deondra D. Johnson for damages arising out of an automobile accident. As a result of the accident, Claimant suffered quadriplegia, cognitive problems, including memory and information processing, depression, anger, agitation, and limited use of hands and fingers and pain. Claimant has not recovered completely as many of the injuries are permanent.

Plaintiff, by and through her guardian ad litem and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims with Defendant for the total amount of $1,000,000.00. If the settlement is approved, $261,192.12 will be used for medical expenses, $400,000.00 for attorneys’ fees, and $17,488.73 will be used for costs. The net balance of $321,319.14 will be paid or transferred

The petition is denied without prejudice for the following reasons:

· Petitioner requests approximately 40% of the Claimant’s settlement be used for attorney’s fees. The court is not satisfied the efforts in this case justify such a high fee. The court asks counsel to reduce the fee in connection with an amended petition, or to submit a declaration sufficiently detailing the efforts expended in this case justifying the request. In particular, an amended declaration should discuss, in detail, the factors listed in California Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b).

· While Petitioner states that $261,192.13 will be used for medical expenses in ; 17b, Petitioner failed to state the total amount to paid as medical expenses in ; 13a(2).

· If funds are distributed to a special needs trust, the probate department must review the terms of the trust. “When the settlement proposes the establishment of a special needs or other trust as provided in Probate Code sections 3600 to 3612, the terms of the proposed trust must be reviewed by the Probate Department. The terms of the trust must include the provisions required in California Rules of Court, rule 7.903, and Local Rule 4.116.” (L.A. County Super. Ct. R 4.115(c).) Plaintiff’s attachment 19b(4), which is supposed to set forth the terms of the propose trust, merely states Claimant’s name and address. The actual terms of the trust, however, are not provided. Petitioner must re-file the petition and include the terms of the proposed trust for probate court review.

· The court cannot locate the necessary form MC-351, which must be lodged in order for the court to process the petition. Petitioner must ensure the form is lodged in connection with an amended petition.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 1^st day of December, 2020

Case Number: ****3238    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Tianni S. Jones, an incapacitated adult by and through her GAL, Joanna Norton, filed this action against Defendants, Orlando H. Pile, Orland H. Pile, M.D., a professional medical corporation, and Deondra D. Johnson for damages arising out of an automobile accident.

Defendant, Orland H. Pile seeks leave of court to take Defendant, Deondra D. Johnson’s deposition. Johnson is currently incarcerated in the Los Angeles Men’s Central Jail. The entity defendant joins the motion.

CCP ;;1995, 1996, and 1997 govern depositions of incarcerated persons. They provide, in pertinent part:

;1995: If the witness be a prisoner, confined in a jail within this state, an order for his examination in the jail upon deposition, or for his temporary removal and production before a court or officer may be made as follows:

1. By the court itself in which the action or special proceeding is pending, unless it be a small claims court.

2. …

;1996: Such order can only be made on the motion of a party, upon affidavit showing the nature of the action or proceeding, the testimony expected from the witness, and its materiality.

;1997: If the witness be imprisoned in a jail in the county where the action or proceeding is pending, his production may be required. In all other cases his examination, when allowed, must be taken upon deposition.

Defense Counsel filed a declaration with the motion. Counsel establishes that Johnson’s testimony is necessary to evaluate the parties’ positions concerning causation of the subject accident and liability contentions. The Court is satisfied that Defendant adequately showed the nature of Johnson’s anticipated testimony and its materiality to the action. Johnson is incarcerated inside Los Angeles County, and Defendant appropriately seeks an order that he be permitted to conduct Johnson’s deposition at the jail where he is incarcerated.

The motion to compel is granted. Defendant is ordered to give notice to all parties of the details of the scheduling of Johnson’s deposition. The joinder does not materially alter the analysis of the motion, and is also granted.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.