DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CU02226·fresno·Probate·Minor's Compromise
Hearing todayDENIED

In re Austin Keohavong

Petition to Approve Compromise of Minor

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$40.91$7,640$4,050$2,200$4,900$464.50

Parties

PetitionerPhoumano Keohavong
OtherAustin Keohavong

Attorneys

Hergenroetherfor Petitioner

Ruling

(35) Tentative Ruling

Re: In re Austin Keohavong Superior Court Case No. 26CU02226

Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 (Dept. 501)

Motion: Petition to Approve Compromise of Minor

Tentative Ruling:

To deny without prejudice. Petitioner Phoumano Keohavong must file a new petition, with appropriate supporting papers and proposed orders, and obtain a new hearing date for consideration of an amended petition. In the event that oral argument is requested, both petitioner Phoumano Keohavong and claimant Austin Keohavong are excused from appearing.

Explanation:

Item 12 reports medical expenses. Item 12(b)(4) reports a Medi-Cal benefit paid in the amount of $40.91. However, evidence was submitted that Medi-Cal did not pay a benefit out on the incident in question. The only figure that aligns is a payment from Sante Health System, who is not listed as medical expense. Moreover, the petition reports that there are lien claims that total $7,640, and that $4,050 would be sufficient to satisfy those lien claims. No evidence was submitted to demonstrate, for example, that The Summit Physical Therapy will accept $2,200 in lieu of its potential lien for $4,900.

Item 13 reports costs of $464.50. This conflicts with the declaration of counsel which reports that counsel is not seeking reimbursement of any costs advanced in this matter. (Attachment 13a, Hergenroether Decl., subpart (1).) The proposed order appears to seek recovery of costs. This requires clarification.

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 08/19/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

18

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