In re Angel Andrade
Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim
Motion type
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Ruling
(37) Tentative Ruling
Re: Angel Andrade Court Case No. 26CU00748
Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 (Dept. 501)
Motion: Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim
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:
Petitioner has not included all relevant medical records for the injuries sustained by the minor. Medical Reports from Fresno Imaging Center and Nicole Carter, LMFT were the only ones attached. Thus, with the exception of mental health issues, there is no record showing the injuries resolved.
The medical billing is not fully substantiated. First, without the medical records, the court cannot assess if the complete medical billing is included with this Petition. Second, petitioner seeks reimbursement of $2,000 for AWS Health, $800 for Dr. Robert E. Caton, and $600 for Beverly Radiology. Neither medical records regarding treatment nor billing records were included for these providers. There is also no explanation for why these are not included with the Medi-Cal lien.
The Petition requests costs in the amount of $621.94. The court does not intend to approve charges against the minor’s recovery that are unreasonable. (Prob. Code, § 3601.) The court is particularly concerned with the 1) Demand Draft Fee for $187.50 and 2) File Preservation for $300. The court is not inclined to include these costs. The Demand Draft Fee appears to be for work that would ordinarily be performed by counsel and thus be included in attorney’s fees. The court is unaware of any authority for a file preservation fee.
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: KCK on 08/18/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
8
Cited authorities
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?”