CERVELLI, et al. vs HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., A CORPORATION, et al.

23CV050259: CERVELLI, et al. vs HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., A CORPORATION, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise with Special Needs Trust CRS# A-50259-001 in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 08/13/2026 Mark Fickes

The petition for approval of the compromise of the minor's claim is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Background

Petitioner Arianna Marie Cervelli, the mother and guardian ad litem of minor claimant Roman Cervelli (born April 6, 2023), petitions under Code of Civil Procedure section 372 and Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600 through 3613 for approval of the compromise of the minor's claim, which arises from a July 26, 2023 incident at a Hobby Lobby store in Dublin. (Am. Pet. ¶¶ 4–8.) An original petition and proposed order were filed April 7, 2026, reflecting a gross recovery to the minor of $79,999. An amended petition and proposed order were filed July 21, 2026, reflecting an increased gross recovery of $80,249 following receipt of an additional $250 from Hobby Lobby, supported by counsel's declaration to amend. (Uhri Amend. Decl. ¶ 2.)

The operative amended petition and proposed amended order were filed August 10, 2026, and the matter came on for hearing on August 13, 2026, in Department 518. The same settlement pays $100,249 to the mother individually as a co-plaintiff. (Am. Pet. ¶ 11b.)

Discussion

The compromise of a minor's claim has no legal effect unless and until the court approves it, and the court must independently determine that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the minor's best interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 372; Prob. Code, § 3500; Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1602–1608.) The petition must be verified and must disclose all information bearing on the reasonableness of the compromise. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950; Espericueta v. Shewry (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 615, 626–627.)

The court may authorize payment from the minor’s recovery of only reasonable expenses, costs, and attorney fees, and it must set attorney fees under a reasonable-fee standard supported by a declaration addressing the applicable factors, because a contracted contingency percentage is a cap, not an entitlement. (Prob. Code, § 3601; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955; Gonzalez v. Chen (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 881, 885–888.) The net balance payable to the minor must be preserved by a court-authorized method over which the court retains jurisdiction until the minor reaches 18 years of age. (Prob.

Code, §§ 3610, 3611, 3612.)

As presently submitted, the petition is not approvable. The petition is denied without prejudice for the following deficiencies, each of which independently warrants denial:

(1) the petition is not verified as to its operative terms, because the verification was executed on 23CV050259: CERVELLI, et al. vs HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., A CORPORATION, et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise with Special Needs Trust CRS# A-50259-001 in Department 518 February 4, 2026, signed on April 2, 2026, and predates the additional $250 payment received May 15, 2026 on which the operative $80,249 recovery depends (Am. Pet. p. 10; Uhri Amend. Decl. ¶ 2);

(2) the petition does not establish that the allocation is in the minor's best interest, allocating $100,249 to the mother individually and $80,249 to the injured child without a fact-based justification reconciling that split with the record — where the child's pre-reduction medical specials ($8,187) exceed the mother's ($1,899) — and without addressing the representative's conflict (Am. Pet. ¶ 11b & Attach. 11b(3), 11b(6));

(3) the requested attorney fee of $26,722.92 is not supported by an adequate declaration under rule 7.955, which states no time expended and does not address proportionality or counsel's aggregate compensation across the two co-plaintiffs ($71,834.97, or 39.80 percent of the $180,498 aggregate settlement) (Uhri Fee Decl. ¶¶ 13–15; Am. Pet., item 17f);

(4) several claimed costs totaling $1,983.88 — including an interest charge on advanced costs, an administrative charge, and a third-party vendor fee — are not shown to be reasonable charges against the minor's recovery and are stated inconsistently (Am. Pet. ¶ 13b & Attach. 13b);

(5) the proposed single-premium deferred annuity cannot be funded as structured, because the annuity confirmation reflects a purchase date of August 1, 2026 that precedes approval (Attach. 8b(2)), and the proposed order includes a Medi-Cal lien reservation and blocked-account mechanics that do not match this record (Prop. Order ¶¶ 7, 9); and

(6) Attachment 11b(3) misstates the date of the incident as March 27, 2025, although the incident occurred July 26, 2023 (Am. Pet., Attach. 11b(3)).

Conclusion

Accordingly, the petition for approval of the compromise of the minor's claim is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner is granted leave to file, within 30 days of the date of this order, an amended petition and a conforming proposed order that cure each of the deficiencies identified above.