PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF CLAIM FOR MINOR
May 26, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 22 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 8 26-CIV-00936 ARIANA PIPKINS, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR ADRIAN JOHNSON VS. NANTHAN NORMAN YAP, ET AL.
ARIANA PIPKINS, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR ADRIAN JOHNSON CHANTEL L. FITTING NANTHAN NORMAN YAP
PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF CLAIM FOR MINOR
TENTATIVE RULING:
Petitioner and her attorney are to appear. Zoom appearances are allowed.
The court’s tentative ruling is to GRANT the petition to approve the minor’s compromise.
California Rules of Court, rule 7.950 requires a court to approve a compromise involving a minor, and the verified petition “must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing on the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.” Attorney Chantel Fitting submits a declaration in support of the petition. This case involves an incident where on July 8, 2025, plaintiff who was riding his bike in a marked crosswalk was struck by a vehicle driven by defendant Nathan Norman Yap. Plaintiff has made almost a full recovery from his injuries. The case has settled for $130,000. In light of the facts of this case and the opinion of experienced counsel, the court finds the settlement reasonable.
The court approves the payment of the negotiated liens and the costs as fair, reasonable, and necessarily incurred.
The court grants the attorneys’ fees request of $43,290.00 based upon a contingency fee of 33.3%. The court finds that in light of all the facts and circumstances; the amount is reasonable. The court has applied the factors in California Rules of Court, rule 7.995(c) in making this determination. Plaintiff’s counsel explains the work that her firm did and declares under penalty of perjury that her firm investigated and filed the case, analyzed the medical and billing records, negotiated the medical liens, obtained key documents, such as the police report, drafted a comprehensive settlement demand, and negotiated the settlement.
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 extent of defendant’s liability was an issue, the amount of recovery was in dispute and plaintiff’s counsel took the case on contingency. The cost of going to trial could have netted plaintiff less money than was received in settlement. This court may allow attorneys’ fees under a valid contingency fee agreement as long as the fees are reasonable. (Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial § 12:576.1 (June 2025 update).) Plaintiff’s counsel 33 1/3% is on the low end of the average contingency fee and is reasonable based upon the facts of this case. (Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy v.
Universal Paragon Corp. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1405, 1415, 1421, 1423, n.3 [“typically range from 33 percent to 40 percent of a settlement amount, and a contingency of 50 percent is not unconscionable.”].)
May 26, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 23 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
The court approves the costs of $3,601.06 of reasonable and necessary, including reimbursement to petitioner for her wage loss and for the non-refundable fees she paid for her son’s participation in a baseball league.
The court approves the money going into a blocked account until plaintiff reaches the age of eighteen (18).