DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CU01678·fresno·Probate·Probate
Hearing 26 days agoDENIED

In Matter of Gonzalez

Expedited Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor

Hearing date
Jul 29, 2026
Department
502
Judge
Prevailing
Opposing Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerGonzalez

Ruling

(37) Tentative Ruling

Re: In Matter of Gonzalez Superior Court Case No. 26CU01678

Hearing Date: July 29, 2026 (Dept. 502)

Motion: Expedited Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor

If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Thursday, July 30, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 502.

Tentative Ruling:

To deny the petition, without prejudice, for the reasons explained below. In the event that oral argument is requested the minor is excused from appearing.

Explanation:

Petitioner has not provided any medical records detailing any treatment or that the minor has recovered. Petitioner did not substantiate any of the medical expenses or liens. Counsel has not included the required declaration regarding attorney fees or a copy of any retainer letter. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955(c).) In fact, Petitioner failed to attach any documents other than a signature verification page. Without the medical records, billing records, or record of the lien, the court cannot evaluate whether this settlement is in the minor’s best interests.

Lastly, Petitioner did not file any proposed orders to accompany this Petition. In any subsequent Petition, Petitioner is to file proposed orders to include the mandatory Judicial Council forms MC-351 and MC-355.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), 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: lmg on 7-28-26. (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