Cordero v. Lompoc Unified School District, et al.

Case Number

23CV02493

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 02/03/2026 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Disabled Person’s Compromise

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Personal (in-person) appearances required. (CRC 7.952.)

The following must be submitted before petition may be approved:

Supplement re: Extent of Injuries.  In ¶8 of the Petition, Petitioner is advised: “An original or photocopy of any doctors’ report containing a diagnosis of the claimant’s injuries or a prognosis for the claimant’s recovery, and a report of the claimant’s current condition, must be attached to this petition as Attachment 8. A new report is not necessary if a previous report accurately describes the claimant’s current condition.”

There were no attachments to paragraph 8 showing any medical diagnosis or full recovery, despite a $5,000 fee being spent on an expert witness, that is now being sought for reimbursement. The supplement must contain medical records showing a current diagnosis and prognosis of future medical care.

Further Declaration Justifying Attorney’s Fees. In ¶13 of the petition, Petitioner is instructed: “If fees are requested, attach as Attachment 13a a declaration from the attorney explaining the basis for the request, including a discussion of applicable factors listed in rule 7.955(b) of the Cal. Rules of Court. Include a copy of any written attorney fee agreement in Attachment 13a.”

While CRC, Rule 7.955 does not dictate a presumptively reasonable percentage or mathematical method of determining the appropriate attorney fees under a contingency agreement (Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1175), the current request for fees is 40% of the total settlement amount, which is unreasonable judging from the facts currently on file with the court.  Every fee award must be determined for reasonableness by the court, which must use the factors listed in Rule 7.955 as a litmus test.

There was not even the slightest effort put into an attempt to justify the fee award in this case.

Further Declaration Justifying Costs.  Courts have a duty to determine whether reimbursement for costs are for “reasonable expenses” before they can be paid from the money or other property to be paid or delivered for the minor’s or disabled person’s benefit.  (Prob. Code, §3601(a); Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1174; Curtis v. Estate of Fagan (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 270, 277 [approval of these expenses, costs, and fees requires determination of validity of claims made or liens filed for reimbursement of these expenses, costs, or fees].)  The costs in this case are extensive ($12,477.99), are unexplained, and most appear to be expenses the attorneys should pay for out of their award, not of the claimant’s funds.  Further supplement is required to explain the reasonableness of the costs.

Supplement Showing Good Cause for Proposed Distribution. The proposed distribution to the minor in this case is not to a blocked account pursuant to Local Rule 1735(a) (“Absent a showing of good cause, it is the policy of the Court to order all funds disbursed to a minor be deposited into a blocked account.”)  A supplement showing why using a pooled SNT is favorable must be submitted.