Martyn Pickering vs John Stump et al

until the minor reaches majority" if the "parent ... gives ... written assurance, verified by the oath of such parent, that the total estate of the minor, including the money or other property to be paid or delivered to the parent, does not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) in value." (Prob. Code, Sec. 3401, subd. (c). The petition establishes that the amount paid to Kurt and the value of Kurt's estate are both $5,000 or less. (Pet., Attach. 18(b)(5) [p. 37].)

The petition establishes that Umay and Kenan, Kurt's parents, sustained personal injuries due to the water intrusion and resulting mold growth in the unit. (Pet., Attach. 11(b)(3) [p. 30].) "Accordingly, their [proportion] of recovery is larger because it [includes] [compensation] for actual injuries sustained, in addition to property loss, loss of income and other out of pocket expenses they had due to this matter." (Ibid.)

Based on the information presented in the petition, the court is inclined to approve the settlement provided that petitioner establishes that the money allocated to Kurt is sufficient to cover anticipated costs for any future monitoring or other anticipated future medical costs related to his alleged injuries in this action. For all these reasons, the court will continue the petition so that petitioner may submit the necessary information. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)

Tentative Ruling: Martyn Pickering vs John Stump et al Tentative Ruling: Martyn Pickering vs John Stump et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 08/28/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings CMC; Motion Compel; Motion Order - Admissions Tentative Ruling

On August 20, 2025, plaintiff Martyn Pickering filed his original complaint in this action against defendants John Stump and Stumpco, Inc. (Stumpco), asserting one cause of action for fraud.

On September 17, 2025, a proof of service by mail was filed showing service by mail on defendant Stump, individually and on behalf of Stumpco. On March 20, 2026, a proof of service was filed showing personal service on defendant Stump on March 10, 2026. Neither Stump nor Stumpco has appeared in this action.

On April 10, 2026, plaintiff served special interrogatories, set one, and request for admissions, set one, on defendant Stumpco. (Pickering decl. re interrogatories, P. 2; Pickering decl. re requests for admissions, P. 2.) "A plaintiff may propound interrogatories to a party without leave of court at any time that is 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, that party, whichever occurs first." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.020, subd. (b).) "A plaintiff may make requests for admission by a party without leave of court at any time that is 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, that party, whichever occurs first." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.020, subd. (b).)

Service by mail on a corporation is not effective service of a summons and complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 416.10.) The proof of personal service as to defendant Stump shows that service is only as to Stump an individual defendant. Because Stumpco has not been effectively served with the summons, plaintiff's service of the discovery that is the subject of these motions by mail is both ineffective and premature. The motions are therefore denied.

Tentative Ruling: Marilyn Gilbert vs Aidan Conlan et al Tentative Ruling: Marilyn Gilbert vs Aidan Conlan et al Case Number