Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim
(49) Tentative Ruling
Re: In Matter of Tapia Avila Superior Court Case No. 26CU01766
Hearing Date: July 22, 2026 (Dept. 502)
Motion: Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim
If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Thursday, July 23, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 502
Tentative Ruling:
To deny, without prejudice. Petitioner must file an amended petition, with appropriate supporting papers and proposed orders, and obtain a new hearing date for consideration of the amended petition. (Super. Ct. Fresno County, Local Rules, rule 2.8.4.) - Explanation:
Petition submitted by Petitioner seeks approval for the compromise of minor claimant’s claim resulting from a motor vehicle accident. However, the petition has several issues that need to be addressed before the settlement can be approved.
First, item 3.b. has been marked and no case number has been provided. Further, a search could not locate any case filed by Minor or Petitioner other than the current case. The court is unsure whether Petitioner meant to mark 3.a. or whether an active case other than this one currently exists.
Second, item 8.b. indicates the injuries minor has not recovered from are temporary. However, the injuries include pain and discomfort to injured body parts over two-and-a-half years after the incident. The court lacks any medical records to corroborate this assessment. The most recent medical record the court was provided was from November 29, 2023 and the medical record indicated further follow up was needed.
Third, item 11. Is not filled out.
Fourth, item 12.a. indicates total medical expenses in the amount of $153,952.24, $5,846.23 was paid, and $9,554.98 was negotiated as a reduction, but then indicates only $4,384.68 is owed. No explanation is provided for the $134,166.35 difference between the total expenses and the amount still owed.
Fifth, item 12.b.(4) indicates $5,846.23 was paid by Medi-Cal but item 12.b.(5)(b)(i) and 12.b.(5)(b)(ii) indicate they were “Paid by Medi-Cal”. Either item by itself is greater than the $5,846.23 as indicated in item 12.b.(4).
Sixth, item 14.b.(1) is not marked nor filled out when item 12. and item 16.b. Indicates medical expenses of $4,384.68 need to be paid. Eighth, attachment 18b(2), that lists the name, branch, and address the account is to be deposited into is missing from the Petition. This may be due to an error attempting to attach documents to the petition that was filed as the petition indicates 11 pages were attached but the court has received no documents attached to the petition. The only documents the court received were the exhibits attached to the separately filed declaration.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Ninth, the Petition is not verified and is missing Petitioner’s signature.
Finally, to the extent documents identify Petitioner as guardian ad litem, no order granting guardian ad litem status is on the court’s docket.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 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 7-20-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
7