Victor Estrada; and Mirian Jeannette Vega vs. Jose Luis Moreno; and Does 1-50

section 435.5, subdivision (a). B. Motion to Strike The City seeks to strike allegations of punitive damages from the Complaint, contending that they are prohibited by Government Code section 818. (Mot., at p. 4.) Pursuant to Government Code section 818, "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, a public entity is not liable for damages awarded under Section 3294 of the Civil Code or other damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant." Plaintiff does not dispute that this provision immunizes public entities from punitive or exemplary damages and that it applies in the present circumstances. (Opp'n, at p. 1.)

Plaintiff does not oppose striking the punitive damages request. (Ibid.) The Court accordingly GRANTS the Motion. Paragraph 14a(2) and the Exemplary Damages Attachment, Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-001(6), are stricken as to the City. C. The County's Joinder The County joins in the motion "on the grounds that the motion is fully applicable to the County's position in this litigation," incorporating by reference all of the City's arguments, authority, and evidence. (Joinder, at p. 2.) The Court agrees that the County is similarly situated to the City with respect to the punitive damages claim.

It is likewise a public entity to which Government Code section 818 applies to shield it from liability for punitive damages. However, the County does not affirmatively request any relief as to itself. The Joinder is therefore ineffective for the Court to afford relief to the County. CONCLUSION Consistent with the foregoing ruling, the Court GRANTS Defendant City of Los Angeles' Motion to Strike, without leave to amend. Moving party to give notice.

Dept. F49 | Date: 8/31/26 | Case Name: Victor Estrada; and Mirian Jeannette Vega vs. Jose Luis Moreno; and Does 1-50 | Case No. 26CHCV00974 | LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT DEPARTMENT F49 AUGUST 31, 2026

PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF DISPUTED CLAIM FOR MINOR Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 26CHCV00974 Petition filed: 8/3/26 MOVING PARTY: Minor Eliana Magdalen Estrada, by and through her parent and Guardian ad Litem, Mirian Jeannette Vega RESPONDING PARTY: None NOTICE: OK RELIEF REQUESTED: Petitioner seeks the Court's approval of the settlement that her minor child, Claimant Eliana Magdalen Estrada, reached with Defendant. TENTATIVE RULING: The Petition is CONTINUED. BACKGROUND This action arises from injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs Victor Estrada and Mirian Jeannette Vega ("Petitioner) (collectively, "Plaintiffs") in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 13, 2024.

Petitioner's minor daughter, Claimant Eliana Magdalen Estrada ("Claimant"), was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident. (Compl., P. GN-1.) On March 10, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint against Defendant Jose Luis Moreno ("Defendant") and Does 1 through 50, alleging motor vehicle and general negligence. On July 14, 2026, the parties informed the Court that the case had settled. On August 3, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim. No opposition or objection has been filed.

ANALYSIS Rule/Requirement/Component | Application | Comments | Claimant (minor) | Eliana Magdalen Estrada | DOB: 10/5/16, age: 9 | Guardian ad Litem¿ |

Mirian Jeannette Vega | Parent, GAL status granted 8/7/26 | Settlement (Total)¿ | $4,000.00 (MC-350, P. 16)¿¿ | Settlement amount to Claimant incorrectly stated as $30,000.00 (MC-350, P. 10a), which represents the settlement amount offered to Claimant and all Plaintiffs. | Injuries¿ | None. (MC-350, P. 6) | ¿ | Medical treatment received?¿ | No. (MC-350, P. 7.) | ¿ | Completely healed of injuries?¿ | N/A. (MC-350, P. 8a)¿ | | Medical Expenses Incurred (Total)¿ | $0.00 (MC-350 P. 12a(1))¿ | | Medical Bills (Documentation)¿ | N/A. | | Outstanding medical payments owed from proceeds¿

| $0.00 (MC-350, P. 12a(4))¿ | | Provider Liens (Documentation)¿ | N/A | | Negotiated Lien Reductions?¿ | N/A | | Documentation of lien reductions¿ | N/A | ¿ | Attorney Fees¿ | $1,000.00 (25% of $4,000.00) (MC-350, P. 13b) | No declaration attached substantiating the fees claimed. | Declaration of fees and copy of retainer? (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b).)¿ | No. | | Litigation Costs¿ | $1,672.19 (MC-350, P. 13b)¿ | Includes $1,000.00 in attorney fees incorrectly itemized as costs. | Are the costs itemized and reasonable?¿ |

Insufficient information provided as to reasonableness of attorney fees. (MC-350, P. 13b) | | Total to be paid to minor¿ | $2,327.81 (MC-350, P. 15) | | Blocked account?¿ | No. (MC-350, P. 18(b)(5).) | $2,327.81 to be paid directly to Claimant's parent. (MC-350, P. 18b(5).) The Petition does not include the name and address of the parent, and the value of Claimant's estate has not been verified by the parent. | Proposed order to approve compromise is congruent with Petition?¿ | No. (MC-351.) | Proposed order indicates that the balance to be paid to Claimant, after all expenses are paid, is $4,000.00, which does not correspond to the expenses and balance listed in the Petition. (MC-351, P. 8b.)

Proposed order also states that the funds will be deposited into a blocked account. | Proposed order to deposit funds is congruent with Petition?¿ | No proposed order to deposit funds filed. Clarification required regarding distribution method. | | Disposition¿ | CONTINUED. | ¿

| After thoroughly reviewing the Petition and supporting documents, the Court identifies the following discrepancies: (1) The Petition itemizes $1,000.00 in attorney fees as costs for the services of the Law Office of Andy Van Le & Associates, PC, but fails to substantiate the claimed fees with a declaration or fee agreement. "A petition requesting court approval and allowance of an attorney's fees ... must include a declaration from the attorney that addresses the factors listed in [subdivision] (b) that are applicable to the matter before the court." (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 7.955, subd. (c).) (2) The Petition indicates that the balance to be paid to the minor will be paid directly to her parent, but fails to identify the parent and state the parent's address or verify that the total value of the minor's estate meets statutory requirements for such disbursement. (3) The proposed order indicates that the balance to be paid to the minor is $4,000.00, which is incongruent with the $2,327.81 listed in the Petition. Petitioner must clarify whether any costs and fees will be paid from the minor's recovery or if the entire $4,000.00 settlement amount is to be paid to Claimant. (4) The proposed order indicates that the settlement must be paid by check to be deposited into a blocked account, yet the Petition states that payment will be made to the minor's parent. (MC-351, P. 8b.)

Petitioner must clarify the distribution method. Based on the foregoing, the Court CONTINUES the Petition to allow Petitioner an opportunity to address the noted discrepancies. CONCLUSION The Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim, filed by Claimant Eliana Magdalen Estrada, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Elian Jeannette Vega, is CONTINUED. Moving party to give notice. | Home -->)" -->