Serrano v. Newport Property Investments, LLC et al.

A petition for court approval of a compromise or covenant not to sue under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must comply with California Rules of Court, rules 7.950, 7.951 and 7.952. The petition must be verified by the petitioner and contain a full disclosure of all information that has "any bearing upon the reasonableness" of the compromise or the covenant. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) The person compromising the claim on behalf of the minor or person who lacks capacity, and the represented person, must attend the hearing on compromise of the claim unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.952.)

Petition

The claimant is Aimee Sarai Ramirez, a 15-year-old minor. Claimant petitions, by and through guardian ad litem Brenda Yesenia Serrano Ramirez, the court to approve of the compromise that was reached through settlement negotiations. Petitioner states that the primary injuries Claimant experienced were allergies or allergy symptoms, itchiness, loss of appetite, and emotional distress. These symptoms were treated with medication and rest. Forms MC-350 and MC-351 have been filed. Proof of service on other parties has been filed. Notice of settlement has been filed.

Allocation:

Global Settlement: $ 690,000.00

Minor's Share: $ 50,000.00

Attorneys' fees (deducted from minor's share): $ 12,500.00

NET SETTLEMENT AMOUNT (minor's share): $ 37,500.00

Claimant is to receive a $50,000 share of the global settlement, minus $12,500 in attorney's fees, leaving them with a $37,500 net recovery. The three adult plaintiffs will collectively receive a $640,000 share of the global settlement, minus $288,000 in attorney's fees and $27,876.23 in litigation costs, leaving them with a $324,123.77 net recovery. However, the MC-350 is inconsistent with this allocation of the global settlement. Item 10(a), which asks for the amount offered to Claimant, states $690,000 rather than $50,000. Item 10(b) also attributes the entire $690,000 to Claimant. Item 11(b)(1), which asks for the amount offered to persons other than Claimant, states $690,000 rather than the correct $640,000 amount to be allocated to the adults. The MC-350 therefore describes $1,380,000 in combined settlement payments and conflicts with its own $50,000 summary and the MC-351.

Medical Expenses: The MC-350 reports no medical expenses, insurance payments, or reimbursements. None of Claimant's settlement will be used to pay medical providers or lienholders. Item 8 of the MC-350 instructs that a doctor's report containing a diagnosis of the Claimant's injuries and a report of the Claimant's current condition "must be attached to this petition as Attachment 8." No Attachment 8 and no medical records of any kind were submitted. Item 8a of the MC-350 states that Claimant has recovered completely and there are no permanent injuries.

Costs & Attorney's Fees: No costs are requested from Claimant's share of the settlement. Counsel requests $12,500 in attorney's fees from Claimant's $50,000 gross recovery, representing a 25-percent contingent fee. A copy of the contingency agreement has been submitted. Counsel's declaration states that counsel has represented Plaintiffs since approximately October 4, 2022, has extensive experience litigating habitability cases, conducted discovery, depositions, expert investigation, and mediation, received no compensation during the representation, and bore the risk of no recovery on the case.

Counsel is charging the adults a 45 percent contingency fee but reduced the fee on Claimant's recovery to 25 percent. The requested 25-percent fee appears fair and reasonable because of the contingent nature of the representation, the duration of the representation, the reduction from the 45 percent fee charged to the adult plaintiffs, and the fact that no litigation costs are being deducted from Claimant's share.

Disposition of Settlement

The MC-350 checks item 18b(3) and directs that Claimant's $37,500 net recovery be used to purchase a structured settlement annuity through Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc., with payments to be made by Pacific Life Insurance Company. The proposed payment schedule provides for four annual payments of $10,534.50, beginning on March 2, 2029 and ending on March 2, 2032. The four guaranteed payments total $42,138.00 and have a present cost of $37,500.00. No MC-355 is required as no part of the balance will be placed in a blocked account.

Disposition: The $50,000 gross allocation to Claimant, the requested 25-percent attorney's fee, the resulting $37,500 net recovery, and the proposed structured annuity disposition of the settlement appear fair and reasonable. The Petition cannot be approved in its present form, however, because the verified MC-350 incorrectly identifies the entire $690,000 global settlement as both the amount offered to Claimant and the amount offered to the other plaintiffs. The record also lacks the physician's report requested by item 8 of the MC-350 and a report of Claimant's current condition.

Conclusion

The Hearing is CONTINUED to September 28, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. for Petitioner to remedy the deficiencies. Corrected documents are due no later than September 18, 2026. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 7.952(a) " The person petitioning for approval of the compromise of the claim on behalf of the minor or person with a disability and the minor or person with a disability must attend the hearing on the petition unless the court for good cause dispenses with their personal appearance." Assuming all documents are in order, Petitioner is ordered to appear at the hearing.

Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative, and copying all parties in the email communication. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.

If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court will adopt the tentative as the final order, or take the matter off calendar at its discretion.

Case Number: 24STCV21716

Hearing Date: August 14, 2026

Dept: 224

Santander

TENTATIVE RULING

The OSC is CONTINUED to October 15, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. for Plaintiff to submit its Proposed Judgment on a JUD-100 form. The Court also sets a Default Prove-up hearing on October 15, 2026 at 9:30 a.m., where Plaintiff will be required to prove-up its legal title and ownership of the auto. Plaintiff must give Defendants notice of this hearing. Any party claiming to have an interest in the auto may be heard at the hearing. Plaintiff shall file and serve the JUD-100 form, and a list of exhibits it intends to use at the prove-up hearing, no less than 10 days before the hearing. Plaintiff to give notice to Defendants, and file proof of service of notice within 5 days.

ANALYSIS

FACTS OF THE CASE: Plaintiff Santander Consumer USA, Inc. purports to be the legal owner of a vehicle leased to Vladimir Koltygin. Koltygin transferred the vehicle to defendants The Body Shop Collision L.L.C, et al. for repair or storage. The vehicle allegedly racked up more than $50,000 worth of labor, tow, and storage fees, causing the Body Shop to retain possession of the vehicle. Plaintiffs believe their ownership claim to the vehicle supersedes that of the Body Shop, and that the defendants have acted purposefully and maliciously in refusing to return it.

Plaintiffs initially sought the return of the vehicle or the payment of the value thereof plus interest in case return is impossible, punitive and exemplary damages, recoupment of their attorneys' fees, the quieting of their title to solidify their ownership claim to the vehicle, and declaratory relief that clarifies the rights and obligations of all parties involved in the controversy. They are currently seeking from the Body Shop the return of the vehicle or fair market value thereof, as well as attorney's fees, and are seeking from the DMV validation of their ownership claim to the vehicle and the voiding of any competing ownership claim or hold placed on the vehicle.

PROOF OF SERVICE/DEFAULT: Default previously entered 9/25/25; 9/11/25

PRINCIPAL REQUESTED: $ 37,475.00

ATTORNEY'S FEES: $ 1,750.00

TOTAL: $ 39,225.00

ANALYSIS: Entry of default is not void as the plaintiff did not file an amended complaint after default was entered, and the defendant did not appear before default was entered.