DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV-07004·merced·Civil·Minor's Compromise
Hearing todayDENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Maria Vera, et al. vs Michelle Cannon, et al.

Petition for Minor’s Compromise Re: Mia Wickard; Petition for Minor’s Compromise Re: Navaeh Wickard

Hearing date
Aug 18, 2026
Department
8
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMaria Vera
DefendantMichelle Cannon
OtherMia Wickard
OtherNavaeh Wickard

Ruling

25CV-07004 Maria Vera, et al. vs Michelle Cannon, et al.

Petition for Minor’s Compromise Re: Mia Wickard

The petition for minor’s compromise is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The petition at No. 1 fails to check the box indicating Maria Vera is guardian ad litem. At No. 3 the petition incorrectly states this matter is not subject to a pending action as a complaint in this matter was filed on December 15, 2025. No. 11 is incorrect as there are others that are receiving a settlement. There is no documentation supporting the request for costs regarding medical records/billing. No. 16 is not completed. No. 17(f) appears to be incorrect as there is an additional minor’s comp where the attorney is requesting fees. Last, as 18(b)(7) is selected, attachment 18b(7) is insufficient as the attachment fails to specify the terms of the proposed trust. Alternatively, if the funds are to be placed in a blocked account, then 18(b)(2) would be the appropriate selection and attachment 18b(2) would need to be attached.

Petitioner is able to refile the petition once the above issues have been addressed.

Petition for Minor’s Compromise Re: Navaeh Wickard

The petition for minor’s compromise is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The petition at No. 1 fails to check the box indicating Maria Vera is guardian ad litem. At No. 3 the petition incorrectly states this matter is not subject to a pending action as a complaint in this matter was filed on December 15, 2025. No. 11 is incorrect as there are others that are receiving a settlement. There is no documentation supporting the request for costs regarding medical records/billing. No. 16 is not completed. No. 17(f) appears to be incorrect as there is an additional minor’s comp where the attorney is requesting fees. Last, as 18(b)(7) is selected, attachment 18b(7) is insufficient as the attachment fails to specify the terms of the proposed trust. Alternatively, if the funds are to be placed in a blocked account, then 18(b)(2) would be the appropriate selection and attachment 18b(2) would need to be attached.

Petitioner is able to refile the petition once the above issues have been addressed.

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