DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CU00322·fresno·Probate·Probate
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

In re: The Matter of Beau Krogen

Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim

Hearing date
May 12, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Aug 19, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerBeau Krogen

Ruling

(48)

Tentative Ruling

Re: In re: The Matter of Beau Krogen Superior Court Case No. 26CU00322

Hearing Date: May 12, 2026 (Dept. 501)

Motion: Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim

Tentative Ruling:

To grant. Petitioner is directed to file new proposed orders within five days of service of the order by the clerk. No appearances necessary.

To set a status conference for Wednesday, August 19, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 403, for confirmation of deposit of the funds into a blocked account. If the Acknowledgment of Receipt of Order and Funds for Deposit in Blocked Account (MC- 356), at least five court days before the hearing, the status conference will come off calendar.

Explanation:

The Petition appears to be sufficiently stated. However, the proposed order approving the compromise has the following issues. As to Item 2, petitioner is referred to as the minor’s guardian ad litem and custodian. No such appointment has been ordered in connection with this Petition. As to Item 6, a selection must be made, and gross settlement amount reported. As to Item 8(b)(1), an amount should be reported. As to Item 9(a), the financial institution identified in the Petition should be reported.

Further, the proposed order to deposit funds needs attention at Item 4.

As to both orders, the hearing date should be specified.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: DTT on 5/11/2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

6

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share