DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CU01498·fresno·Civil·Probate
Hearing 18 days agoDENIED

In the Matter of Vincente Gamboa

Expedited Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor

Hearing date
Aug 6, 2026
Department
403
Judge
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$-3,750

Parties

PetitionerVincente Gamboa

Ruling

(34) Tentative Ruling

Re: In the Matter of Vincente Gamboa Superior Court Case No. 26CU01498

Hearing Date: August 6, 2026 (Dept. 403)

Motion: Expedited Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor

Tentative Ruling:

To deny the petition, without prejudice, for the reasons explained below. Petitioner must file an amended petition, with appropriate supporting papers and proposed orders.

In the event that oral argument is requested the minor is excused from appearing.

Explanation:

The expedited petition submitted for minor claimant Vincente Gamboa does not include sufficient information regarding the injuries, medical treatment, and medical bills for the court to evaluate.

The expedited petition includes no evidence to support the petition and no proposed orders. The balance to the minor is “$-3,750.” (Petn., Items 16, 17.) The petition appear to be both incomplete and inaccurate. As a result, the petition is denied without prejudice.

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: SMC on August 6, 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