Saul Fuerte Calderon vs. Stargate Ranch, LLC, et al
Saul Fuerte Calderon vs. Stargate Ranch, LLC, et al
Case Number
21CV04237
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 12/13/2023 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Plaintiff’s Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim of Person with a Disability
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiff Saul Fuerte Calderon: Arash Khorsandi, Brian G. Beecher, Law Offices of Arash Khorsandi, PC
For Defendant Stargate Ranch, LLC: Lisa N. Shyer, Veronica S. Webb, Procter, Shyer & Winter, LLP
For Defendant and Cross-Complainant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.: James J. Yukevich, Jeffrey W. Caligiuri, David V. Moore, Katya Etemadieh, Yukevich Cavanaugh
RULING
For all reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s petition for approval of compromise of claim of Plaintiff Saul Fuerte Calderon is granted. The Court will sign the proposed order.
Background
This is personal injury action arising out of an incident involving an all-terrain vehicle (ATV). Plaintiff is Saul Fuerte Calderon. Defendants are Stargate Ranch, LLC (the Ranch) and American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (Honda). As alleged in the complaint, on June 22, 2021, in connection with his employment by a third party (not a Defendant in this action), Plaintiff was present on property owned by the Ranch and located at 777 Glen Annie Road, Goleta, California 93117 (the premises). Plaintiff was a passenger on an ATV owned by Stargate when it rolled over and crashed. Plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries. On October 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) general negligence, (2) premises liability, (3) negligent undertaking, (4) strict products liability – design defect, (5) strict products liability – failure to warn, (6) negligent failure to retrofit or recall, and (7) intentional failure to retrofit or recall.
Calderon, through his guardian ad litem Fabiola Gonzalez, now petitions for approval of compromise of his claims.
There is no opposition to the petition.
Analysis
“While the guardian ad litem has the power to assent to procedural steps that will facilitate a determination of the ward’s case [citation], the guardian ad litem’s authority is that of “ ‘ “an agent with limited powers.” ’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] For example, when a guardian ad litem believes that settling a case is in the ward’s best interests, that decision requires Court approval. (Code Civ. Proc., 372.) The Court has a duty to ensure that the ward’s rights are protected by the guardian ad litem.” (McClintock v. West (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 540, 549.)
“A petition for Court approval of a compromise of, or a covenant not to sue or enforce judgment on, a minor’s disputed claim; a compromise or settlement of a pending action or proceeding to which a minor or person with a disability is a party; or the disposition of the proceeds of a judgment for a minor or person with a disability under Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600-3613 or Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing on the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition. Except as provided in rule 7.950.5, the petition must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)
“If the petitioner has been represented or assisted by an attorney in preparing the petition for approval of the compromise of the claim or in any other respect with regard to the claim, the petition must disclose the following information:
“(1) The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney;
“(2) Whether the attorney became involved with the petition, directly or indirectly, at the instance of any party against whom the claim is asserted or of any party’s insurance carrier;
“(3) Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter;
“(4) Whether the attorney has received any attorney’s fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation;
“(5) If the attorney has not received any attorney’s fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, whether the attorney expects to receive any fees or other compensation for these services, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who is expected to pay the fees or other compensation; and
“(6) The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.951.)
The petition alleges that Calderon was born on November 19, 1970 and is 51 years old and suffers from a disability. (Petition, ¶ 2.) (Note: if the birth date given is correct, Plaintiff is 53 years old.)
As the result of an ATV roll-over accident, Plaintiff sustained traumatic brain injury with cerebral edema, epidural hematoma, and subdural hematoma with midline shift of the brain, posterior rib fracture, L1-2 fracture, and fracture of his right nasal bone. (Petition, ¶¶ 5, 6.)
As a result of his injuries, Plaintiff received the following care: “Emergency treatment, ICU, bilateral craniostomy for decompression and evacuation of epidural hematoma, left craniectomy, left cranioplasty, hospitalization for infections, sepsis, etc., nursing home care.” (Petition, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff has not recovered completely from the effects of his injuries and has permanent traumatic brain injury. (Petition, ¶ 8, subd. (c).)
The Ranch has offered settlement in the amount of $3,000,000.00 and Honda has offered settlement in the amount of $100,000.00. (Petition, ¶ 10.) No Defendant has offered to pay money to any person other than Plaintiff to settle claims arising out of the subject accident. (Petition, ¶ 11, subd. (a).)
Plaintiff’s total medical expenses before any reductions is $897, 096.00, medical expenses paid total $549,061.01, total reductions are $348,034.99, and total medical expenses to be paid from the settlement proceeds is $119,998.21. (Petition, ¶ 12, subd. (a).)
Plaintiff is requesting approval for payment of $1,395,000.00 in attorney fees and $49,827.79 in costs. (Petition, ¶ 13.)
The net balance of proceeds for Plaintiff is $1,535,174.00. (Petition, ¶ 15.) There is a conservatorship of Plaintiff filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. CONSB2300299 and Plaintiff proposes that all his proceeds not become part of the conservatorship estate and that the funds be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only on authorization of the Court. (Petition, ¶ 18, subd. (a))
The proposed annuity is through Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company and provides for the following periodic payment schedule:
- $6,658.24 for life, payable monthly, guaranteed for 10 years; (2) $50,000.00 guaranteed lump sum; and (3) $54.50 for life, payable monthly, guaranteed for 10 years. (Petition, Exh. 18a (3) (b).)
Plaintiff has supported his petition with substantial medical documentation and all the information required by the California Rules of Court. The Court has thoroughly reviewed all the information provided by Plaintiff and finds that the settlement is reasonable and in Plaintiff’s best interests. As such, the petition will be granted. The Court finds the proposed order provided by Plaintiff acceptable and intends on executing the same.