Expedited Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor
(34) Tentative Ruling
Re: In the Matter of Brandon Aguirre Figueroa Superior Court Case No. 26CU00567
Hearing Date: July 23, 2026 (Dept. 503)
Motion: Expedited Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor
Tentative Ruling:
To deny the petition, without prejudice, for the reasons explained below. Petitioner must file an amended petition, with appropriate supporting papers and proposed orders.
In the event that oral argument is requested the minor is excused from appearing.
Explanation:
According to the petition, the minor has fully recovered from injuries received in a car collision and is to receive a gross settlement of $500 with the balance of the settlement after medical costs and attorney fees to be deposited in a blocked account. There are several issues with the petition that prevent approval.
The Petition at Item 9a indicates that the minor has recovered completely from his injuries, however, there is no doctor’s report of the minor’s condition reflecting that he has recovered. The last record is from November 5, 2024 indicating the minor was experiencing headaches and was prescribed Acetaminophen. (Petn., Item 9a, Att. 9.)
Counsel’s supplemental declaration attesting to what the minor’s parent has communicated regarding the minor’s recovery is hearsay and will not support finding the minor’s injuries have resolved.
The Petition at Items 11 and 12 indicates a total settlement of $25,000 apportioned with Agustin Aguirre Perez, the minor’s father, receiving $24,000, and claimant and his minor brother both receiving $500. Attachment 12 indicates the settlement was apportioned between the parties based on the extent of injuries and treatment sought and generally describes the father’s injuries as moderate, the claimant’s injuries as minimal, and brother as having no injuries. This information is not sufficient to explain why the settlement is heavily apportioned in favor of father Agustin Aguirre Perez or why the two minors are receiving the same amount in settlement where only one is injured.
The court also notes that the total settlement amount of $25,000 is less than the 2024 minimum per occurrence policy limits of $30,000. Additional information as to the at-fault driver’s policy limits and whether policy limits are exhausted is requested.
Counsel’s supplemental declaration explains that the at-fault driver’s policy limits were $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence. This suggests that no apportionment should have been necessary as the three claimants settled for less than the per occurrence policy limit of $50,000. This suggests counsel believes $500 is the full 5
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?”
value of the minor’s claim. If this is the case the petition should so state rather than suggesting apportionment was necessary and all claimants are receiving less than the value of their claims.
Attorney Fees
As a matter of law, in addition to approval of the settlement itself, attorney fees to be paid for representing the minor or incompetent must be approved by the court. (Prob. Code § 3601.) Unless the court has approved the attorney's fee agreement in advance, the court must determine a reasonable fee based on all the circumstances of the case and may consider the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, Probate Rule 7.955, subdivision (b).
The court must consider the terms of any fee agreement between the attorney and the representative of the minor or disabled person and must evaluate the agreement based on the facts and circumstances at the time the agreement was made. (Cal. Rules of Court, Prob. Rule 7.955(a).) The court may allow attorney fees under a valid contingency fee agreement so long as the fees are reasonable. (Cal. Rules of Court, Prob. Rule 7.955(a), Advisory Comm. Comment; see Gonzalez v. Chen (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 881, 885-886 [lawyer not automatically entitled to maximum MICRA fees as provided in contingency agreement because court must apply factors stated in Cal.
Rules of Court, Prob. Rule 7.955].) A petition seeking fees must be supported by a declaration by the attorney that addresses the factors that are relevant to the fee request. (Cal. Rules of Court, Prob. Rule 7.955(c).) Similarly, reasonable expenses and court costs to be paid out of the settlement proceeds must be approved by the court. (Prob. Code § 3601.)
Here, the attorney fee of $125, representing 25% of the settlement, is to be paid pursuant to a client fee agreement. The exhibit included with the petition is in Spanish and the requested percentage of 25% is discounted from the contracted 33 1/3% to be recovered should the case settle within 90 days of the representation or 40% should the case settle after the first 90 days of representation. (Petn., Att. 14a, Declaration of William White, ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Agustin Aguirre Perez is anticipated to pay $9,600, representing 40% of the $24,000 settlement apportioned to him. (Petn., Item 18b.)
The fee is supported in part by counsel’s argument that the firm incurred costs of $100 for the minor that are being waived. (Id., Att. 14a, White Decl., ¶ 6b.) A ledger of costs for the claimant includes a charge for a “Demands Processing Fee” to be paid to “Demands R Us, LLC.” (Id., Att. 14a, White Decl., Ex. B.) It is unclear why a demand letter for a personal injury claim would be considered a cost rather than part of the attorney fee since this task is one ordinarily completed by the attorney.
There is nothing in the declaration to indicate there was any novelty or difficulty presented in the action, or that the action required significant time or labor of counsel, or that taking this case precluded counsel from accepting other cases.
Counsel’s supplemental declaration includes the English language version of the fee agreement but does not include additional information to suggest there was work specific to this minor that necessitates a fee. Rather it appears counsel is adequately compensated from petitioner’s settlement for the work performed settling all three claims. (See Petn., Item 18b indicating counsel anticipates receiving $9,600 in attorney
fees from Agustin Aguirre Perez.) The anticipated $9,600 fee from petitioner Agustin Aguirre Perez’s $24,000 claim is 38.4% of the $25,000 recovered for all three claimants.
In light of the de minimus settlement to the minor, the court is not inclined to deem the fee reasonable.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: JS on 7/21/2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
7