Plaintiffs' Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim of Jacob Garcia, a Minor
18, 2026. As an excuse, Plaintiff's counsel declares: "This case was originally assigned within my office to an associate attorney who was responsible for handling discovery obligations, calendaring deadlines, and supervising the assigned paralegal on the matter. The associate attorney and the paralegal assigned to assist him are no longer employed with my firm." (Farzam decl., P. 3.)
"Unbeknownst to me at the time, the assigned associate and his support staff failed to properly manage and prosecute this matter, including failing to timely comply with certain discovery obligations and Court-ordered deadlines. Their mishandling of this file was not an isolated incident and was part of broader performance and case management issues which ultimately resulted in their separation from the firm." (Farzam decl., P. 4.)
"Upon discovering the extent of the deficiencies and neglect in this case, my office immediately undertook efforts to correct the issues, review the outstanding discovery, communicate with opposing counsel, and bring the Plaintiff into compliance. (Farzam decl., P. 5.)
"Since that time, Plaintiff has served verified discovery responses and supplemental responses and has produced responsive documents presently available and within Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control. Additional supplementation has also been provided in good faith in an effort to address concerns raised by Defendants." (Farzam decl., P. 6 & Exh. 1.)
It is axiomatic that Farzam, as Plaintiff's attorney of record, is ultimately the attorney responsible for the handling of this case and for the supervision of subordinates who perform work on the case. While Defendants argue that Plaintiff's responses are still deficient in some respects, the amended responses give the parties the opportunity to further meet and confer, and, if necessary, to bring a further motion regarding the responses. The providing of responses largely moots the present motion. However, the Court will order that Plaintiff fully comply with the order that he produce all responsive documents to the request for production of documents. If he fails to do so, evidence sanctions will be imposed that will prevent Plaintiff from introducing any non-produced documents into evidence at trial.
Monetary Sanctions
Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of $2,625.00 for the necessity of bringing the present motion. Defendants' counsel declares: "I spent a total of 4.8 hours researching, reviewing and preparing for Defendant's motion for order compelling responses. I anticipate having to spend an additional 1 hour reviewing Plaintiff Julian Broadbery's opposition, 3 hours preparing Defendant's reply, 1 hour attending the hearing on Defendant's motion and an estimated 6 hours round trip travel to the hearing on Defendant's motion, and $60.00 fees associated with filing this motion. My regular billable rate on similar cases such as this is $175.00 per hour. Therefore, Defendants request that the Court award sanctions in the amount of $2,625.00."
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
"The Court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The Court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the Court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2023.030, subd. (a).)
"Plaintiff does not oppose reasonable monetary sanctions to address any inconvenience or additional work caused by the delays." (Opp., p. 4, ll. 19-21.)
Monetary sanctions will be imposed. Specifically, because he admits the failure to respond was the fault of his office, Plaintiff's counsel will be responsible for the payment of the monetary sanctions. However, the amount will be reduced. Six hours of travel time is unreasonable. There is no need for Defendants' counsel to drive from San Diego, where his office is located, to Santa Barbara for a routine discovery hearing. Defendants' counsel has the option of appearing remotely. Therefore, the total sanctions imposed, for the present motion, shall be $1,715.00.
Tentative Ruling: Maria Gonzalez, as guardian ad litem for Jacob Garcia v. Antonio Haro and Diana Haro
Tentative Ruling: Maria Gonzalez, as guardian ad litem for Jacob Garcia v. Antonio Haro and Diana Haro
Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion
Hearing Date / Time Wed, 07/15/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings Plaintiffs' Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim of Jacob Garcia, a Minor
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiff Jacob Garcia, a Minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Maria Gonzalez: Bradford D. Brown
For Defendants Antonio Haro and Diana Haro: Dave Hitch, Law Offices of Richardson Fair & Cohen
RULING
For the reasons set forth herein, the motion for approval of compromise of claim of Jacob Garcia, a minor, is granted as modified: The Court approves gross settlement in the amount of $75,000.00, Medi-Cal reimbursement of $212.34, $2,993.75 in expenses, and attorneys' fees in the reduced amount of $25,000.00. The balance of $46,793.91 is to be placed in the blocked account at US Bank for the benefit of Jacob Garcia. Plaintiff shall file a revised Order (MC-351), and a revised Order to Deposit Funds in Blocked Account (MC-355), that conforms to this order, no later than July 22, 2026. Plaintiff shall file acknowledgement from US Bank of the depositing of the funds, and receipt of the Order to Deposit Funds in Blocked Account, within 15 days of the deposit.
Background
By way of judicial council form complaint, filed on May 24, 2024, Plaintiff Jacob Garcia (Garcia), a Minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Maria Gonzalez (Gonzalez), alleges: On June 3, 2023, at 4888 Kodiak Ave, Santa Barbara, Defendants Antonio and Diana Haro's (collectively "Defendants") dog bit Garcia on the nose. (Complaint, P. GN-1.)
On July 29, 2024, Defendants answered the complaint with a general denial and 16 affirmative defenses. On July 23, 2025, Garcia filed a notice of conditional settlement of entire case. Gonzalez and Garcia now move for approval of the compromise of the action.
Analysis
"The requirements that a guardian ad litem be appointed and that the proposed compromise of a minor's claim be approved by the trial Court exist to protect the best interests of the minor." (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4 th 1333, 1338.)
"While the guardian ad litem has the power to assent to procedural steps that will facilitate a determination of the ward's case [citation], the guardian ad litem's authority is that of " ' "an agent with limited powers." ' [Citation.]" [Citation.] For example, when a guardian ad litem believes that settling a case is in the ward's best interests, that decision requires Court approval. (Code Civ. Proc., 372.) The Court has a duty to ensure that the ward's rights are protected by the guardian ad litem." (McClintock v. West (2013) 219 Cal.App.4 th 540, 549.)
"A petition for Court approval of a compromise of, or a covenant not to sue or enforce judgment on, a minor's disputed claim; a compromise or settlement of a pending action or proceeding to which a minor or person with a disability is a party; or the disposition of the proceeds of a judgment for a minor or person with a disability under Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600-3613 or Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing on the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition. Except as provided in rule 7.950.5, the petition must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350)." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)
"If the petitioner has been represented or assisted by an attorney in preparing the petition for approval of the compromise of the claim or in any other respect with regard to the claim, the petition must disclose the following information: "(1) The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney; "(2) Whether the attorney became involved with the petition, directly or indirectly, at the instance of any party against whom the claim is asserted or of any party's insurance carrier; "(3) Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter; "(4) Whether the attorney has received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation; "(5) If the attorney has not received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, whether the attorney expects to receive any fees or other compensation for these services, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who is expected to pay the fees or other compensation; and "(6) The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.951.)
Plaintiff has submitted the following information, on the required judicial council form MC-350 (Petition), signed by Hernandez under penalty of perjury: Garcia is 7 years old with a date of birth of July 3, 2018. (Petition, P. 2.)
On June 3, 2023, at 10:00 p.m., at 4888 Kodiak Avenue, Santa Barbara, Garcia attended a get together with his mother at Defendants' home when the Defendants' mixed-breed dog bit Garcia on the nose. (Petition, P.P. 4, 5.)
Garcia sustained a one-centimeter laceration requiring an emergency visit with one suture and one follow-up visit with a plastic surgeon.. (Petition, P. 6.)
Garcia was taken to Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital where he received an x-ray of the nose to check for foreign bodies (negative), and the laceration was cleaned and sutured. Garcia had one follow-up visit with Plaintiff's expert witness plastic surgeon. There were no other visits. (Petition, P. 7.)
Garcia has recovered completely from the effects of his injuries and there are no permanent injuries. (Petition, P. 8.)
The terms of the settlement are that Defendants will pay $75,000.00 in settlement of the claim, and no payments will be made to others for claims arising out of the subject accident. (Petition, P.P. 10, 11.)
Garcia's medical expenses before any reductions total $212.34. Of that amount, total medical expenses paid total $212.34, reductions total $0, and medical expenses to be paid from settlement proceeds total $212.34. (Petition, P. 12, subd. (a).)
Medi-Cal paid $212.34 and is to be reimbursed that amount from the settlement. (Petition, P. 12, subd. (b)(4).
Garcia's attorney requests that the Court approve $30,000.00 (40 percent) from Garcia's settlement as attorney fees. (Petition, P.P. 13, subd. (a), 16 & Proposed Order P. 8.) [Note: There is a typographical error at P. 13, subd. (a) that states the amount of attorney's fees sought is $20,831.25. This is obviously an error as in multiple other sections of the petition, including the declaration of counsel and the fee agreement, attorney's fees of $30,000.00 is what is being sought.]
Garcia's attorneys claim reasonably incurred costs advanced in the amount of $2,993.75, and requests that that amount be reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. (Petition, P. 13, subd. (b).)
The net balance of settlement proceeds to be paid to Garcia totals $41,793.91. (Petition, P. 15.)
Garcia's attorney provides all the information about himself that is required by California Rules of Court, rule 7.951. (Petition, P. 17.)