DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
23CECG04857·fresno·Probate·Personal Injury
DENIED

Arambula-Garcia v. Servellon et al.

Petition to Compromise Claim

Hearing date
May 12, 2026
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Petition

Parties

PetitionerBlanca Marisela Arambula-Garcia
PlaintiffFrancisco Arambula Velazquez
DefendantServellon

Ruling

(35) Tentative Ruling

Re: Arambula-Garcia v. Servellon et al. Superior Court Case No. 23CECG04857

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

Motion: Petition to Compromise Claim

Tentative Ruling:

To deny, without prejudice. In the event that argument is requested, both petitioner Blanca Marisela Arambula-Garcia and plaintiff Francisco Arambula Velazquez are excused from appearing.

Explanation:

Petitioner Blanca Marisela Arambula-Garcia (“petitioner”) seeks an order compromising the claim of plaintiff Francisco Arambula Velazquez.

Upon review of the Petition, it appears that petitioner seeks to establish a courtsupervised special needs trust. (Attachment 10c, Attachment 18(b)(4).) The purpose of the trust appears to be to enable future public assistance. This court in a civil proceeding will not retain jurisdiction of such trust supervision. Accordingly, petitioner must show that she has first filed with the Probate Division to establish the supervised trust to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 7.903. The Probate Division provides the requisite ongoing court supervision of the trust. Once there is an approved probate petition, petitioner may refile for approval to fund the trusts through an order of compromise of claim in this civil matter.

For the above reasons, the Petition is denied, but 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: DTT on 5/11/2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

15

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash 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?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share