BREANNE HERNANDEZ, ET AL VS. RECOLOGY, INC., ET AL
Plaintiffs’ Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim
Motion type
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Attorneys
Ruling
8/27/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 3 of 16
2:00 PM LINE 2 23-CIV-01255 BREANNE HERNANDEZ, ET AL VS. RECOLOGY, INC., ET AL
BREANNE HERNANDEZ GARY A. DORDICK MIGUEL ALVAREZ P. CHRISTIAN SCHELEY
Plaintiffs’ Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person with a Disability
TENTATIVE RULING:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
For the reasons stated below, the petition is CONTINUED. The petitioner's supplemental filing does not adequately address the court's concerns about the proposed minor compromise. The remaining deficiencies are curable and do not presently suggest that the allocation or settlement amount is substantively improper.
The focused conditions should be: (1) a verified declaration expressly addressing Amias's current medical, orthopedic, neurological, psychological, developmental/educational status, supported if practicable by his most recent pediatric record; (2) a corrected attorney declaration making clear that the operative fee request is $60,603.46/25%; (3) clarification of the $485.63 medical-payment discrepancy and confirmation that the $16,906.64 Kaiser/Machinify amount is the only outstanding reimbursement obligation; and (4) a revised proposed order/blocked-account order reflecting the $162,059.14 net recovery.
If those matters are supplied, I see a reasonable basis on this record to approve the $242,413.86 compromise, the 25% fee, the $2,844.62 costs, the $16,906.64 reimbursement, and the resulting $162,059.14 blockedaccount deposit.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court.
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”