Case Number: BC591921??? Hearing Date: February 06, 2017??? Dept: 98
RICARDO NUNEZ, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, JOSE RICHARD NUNEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FLORENCIA TIRADO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: BC591921
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF MINORDept. 98
1:30 p.m.
February 6, 2017
On August 19, 2015, Plaintiff Ricardo Nunez, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Jose Richard Nunez (?Claimant?) filed this action against Defendant Florencia Tirado for alleged damages arising out of an April 26, 2014 incident involving a balloon jumper. Claimant has agreed to settle his claims against Defendant in the amount of $22,000.00. If approved, $702.00 of the settlement proceeds will be used for medical expenses, $5,500.00 for attorney?s fees, and $4,097.00 for expenses, for a remaining balance of $11,701.00. Petitioner Jose Richard Nunez (?Petitioner?) asserts that there is a guardianship of the estate and requests that the remaining balance be transferred to the trustee of a trust that is either created by or approved of in the order approving the settlement given for Claimant.
Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor?s claim. Cal. Probate Code ?? 3500, 3600, et seq.; Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ? 372. The Court has reviewed the settlement and finds that it is fair and reasonable. The Court also finds the requested attorney?s fee, which amounts to 25% of the total settlement, to be fair and reasonable. The Court is therefore inclined to grant the Petition.
Per California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952, Petitioner and Claimant must appear at the hearing, unless the Court finds good cause to excuse their appearance. The Court requires Petitioner and Claimant?s appearance at the hearing.
Further, the Court notes that the Petition reflects that there is a guardianship of the estate, but Petitioner indicates that the guardianship of the estate case number is the same as this action, rather than a separate Probate action. It is unclear to the Court whether there truly is a guardianship of the estate or whether Petitioner mistakenly believes that a Guardian ad Litem is equivalent to a guardian of the estate. Further, Petitioner has not provided the terms of the proposed trust in Attachment 19a(3), as required, and Attachment 4c is a Proposed Order to Deposit Money Into Blocked Account. If there is no guardianship of the estate, Petitioner is instructed to provide the Court with an amended Petition and amended proposed orders at the hearing.
In light of the foregoing, the Petition will be GRANTED on the condition that Petitioner and Claimant appear at the hearing and, if there is no guardian of the estate, Petitioner provides an amended Petition
Dated this 6th day of February, 2017
Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court