Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00164/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00164-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 42:1395 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

---

1

3:14-cv-0164-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YARET MORALES, as next friend of 

E.L.M., the real party in interest,

Plaintiff,

v.

PALOMAR HEALTH; BRUCE 

FRIEDBERG; CEP AMERICA LLC; 

KELLY PRETORIOUS; RADY 

CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL SAN DIEGO; 

WENDY HUNTER; and CHILDREN’S 

SPECIALISTS OF SAN DIEGO, a 

Medical Group, Inc.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-0164-GPC-MDD

ORDER REQUIRING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE: 

EX PARTE PETITION FOR 

MINOR’S COMPROMISE

[ECF No. 182] 

Before the court is the ex parte petition of Yaret Morales, the next friend and 

mother of minor Plaintiff Estela Laredo Morales, for approval of the compromise of 

Estela’s medical negligence claim. Dkt. No. 182. United States Magistrate Judge 

Dembin filed a Report and Recommendation granting the petition. Dkt. No. 185. 

Case 3:14-cv-00164-GPC-MDD Document 186 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:14-cv-0164-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On April 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a joint notice of settlement. ECF No. 177. A 

month and a half later, Plaintiff filed the instant ex parte petition for the Court to approve 

the settlement and to distribute the settlement funds. ECF No. 182. In it, Plaintiff 

indicates that the parties have agreed to settle the dispute for $300,000, contingent upon 

approval by the Court. Id. Pursuant to the agreement, Defendants RCHSD and 

Children’s Specialists will both pay Plaintiff $150,000. Id. Because Estela currently 

receives medical services through Medi-Cal, Plaintiff has additionally proposed that her 

portion of the settlement be paid into a special needs trust, which was approved on May 

19, 2017. Id. The joint settlement also contemplates that $107,069.11 of Plaintiff’s 

settlement will be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel for litigation costs and that $59,899.39 will 

be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel for attorney’s fees. Id. 

Under California law, the court is to evaluate the reasonableness of the settlement 

and determine whether the compromise is in the best interest of the minor. See 

Espericueta v. Shewry, 164 Cal. App. 4th 615, 617 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008); Anderson v. 

Latimer, 166 Cal. App. 3d 667, 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985). Attorney’s fees to be paid for 

representing the minor must also be approved by the court. Cal. Fam. Code § 6602 (“A 

contract for attorney’s fees for services in litigation, made by or on behalf of a minor, is 

void unless the contract is approved . . . by the court in which the litigation is pending . . . 

.”). The court has “broad power” to “authorize payment from the settlement—to say who 

and what will be paid from the minor’s money—as well as direct certain individuals to 

pay it.” Goldberg v. Superior Court, 23 Cal. App. 4th 1378, 1382 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)

(citing Cal. Prob. Code § 3601); see also Cal. Civ. Code P. § 372 (“Money or property to 

be paid or delivered pursuant to the order or judgment for the benefit of a minor . . . shall 

be paid and delivered as provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 3600) of Part 8 

of Division 4 of the Probate Code). 

Upon reviewing the materials submitted by Plaintiff, the Court has concluded that 

does not have the information it requires to make a reasonableness determination 

regarding Plaintiff’s counsel’s litigation costs. Exhibit 3 of the settlement, entitled “Cost 

Case 3:14-cv-00164-GPC-MDD Document 186 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:14-cv-0164-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Summary Report with Details,” ECF No. 182-2, lists various costs incurred, to whom, 

and on what date, but does not provide any detail concerning the nature of the costs or

their purpose. Absent such detail, the Court cannot approve Plaintiff’s request for 

$107,069.11 in litigation costs for Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court notes that it is 

particularly concerned with the paucity of information contained within the section listing 

fees for “Expert Consultations.” The summary of costs merely lists that certain experts 

were paid for their services, but does not indicate what the expert was hired for or what 

expertise they imparted. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff submit a 

supplemental “Cost Summary Report with Details” that provides the Court with the 

information it needs to make a determination about the reasonableness of the litigation 

costs and, in particular, the reasonableness of the expert fees amassed. Plaintiff shall 

submit the supplemental briefing on or before Thursday, August 3, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 27, 2017

Case 3:14-cv-00164-GPC-MDD Document 186 Filed 07/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3