Case Number: BC494418    Hearing Date: July 30, 2014    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

RAUL RUIZ, et al.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
ROJOS MECHANICAL BULL, et al.,
Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC494418

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF MINOR

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #19
July 30, 2014

Petitioner’s Petition to Approve Compromise of Minor is Denied without Prejudice but authorizes the re-filing of the petition in order for Petitioner to address and cure the defects listed below.

Plaintiff, Raul Ruiz, a minor by and through her GAL, Beatriz Martinez, filed this action against Defendant Rojos Mechanical Bull for damages arising from riding a mechanical bull. Plaintiff suffered a broken tooth and injury to his mouth, face and neck. He was nine years old at the time. An implant replaced the broken tooth and Plaintiff obtained an MRI for his neck pain. The tooth will have to be replaced by a permanent tooth when he is 18 years old.

Plaintiff, by and through her GAL and attorney, has agreed to settle his action against Defendant for the total amount of $40,000. If approved, $3,790 will be used for medical bills, $10,000 for attorneys’ fees, and $2,145 for costs incurred herein (ie: investigation fee, filing fee, service fee, file establishment fee, mediation fee). Petitioner proposes to place the net settlement amount of $24,065 in an insured and blocked account. Petitioner asserts that the name, branch and address of the depository is included in Attachment 19b(2). However, no such attachment is provided.
The Court is not aware of any authority allowing for a “file establishment fee” nor does the Court comprehend such fee. As such, the $400 fee for such cost is questioned unless an explanation with legal authority is provided.
The Court has reviewed the settlement and finds it is fair and reasonable. The Court also finds the attorneys’ fees fair and reasonable, in that they amount to 25% of the total settlement. However, Petitioner failed to attach the retainer agreement herein.

Finally, per CRC 7.952, Petitioner and Plaintiff must appear at the hearing. The Court will require their appearance.
However, in light of the defects listed above, the Court denies without prejudice the application and authorizes the refiling of same so that the defects can be addressed and cured.

Dated this 30th day of July, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court