DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CECG05696·fresno·Probate·Probate
Hearing about 2 months agoDENIED

In the Matter of Jazleen Martinez

Expedited Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor

Hearing date
Jul 8, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$50,000$130,000

Parties

PetitionerJazleen Martinez

Ruling

(37) Tentative Ruling

Re: In the Matter of Jazleen Martinez Superior Court Case No. 25CECG05696

Hearing Date: July 8, 2026 (Dept. 501)

Motion: Expedited Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor

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:

The judgment or total settlement stated in the petition (item nos. 11 and 12) exceeds the $50,000 qualifying limitation required for expedited relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5(a)(8); see also, Petn., Item 3(g), and neither counsel’s declaration nor the other attached documents provide sufficient justification for applying the limited exceptions. The petition states the total recovery for all parties is $130,000 and the minor claimant is not receiving the single person limit. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.5(a)(8)(A).

As such, 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: KCK on 07/07/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

3

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