DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV001863·monterey·Civil·Minor's Compromise
Hearing todayParties to appear regarding the status of the petition

Jose Javier Garcia Pantoja, et al. v. Ernest Gomez

Minor’s Compromise Petition

Hearing date
Aug 21, 2026
Department
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJose Javier Garcia Pantoja
PlaintiffAdonai Valez Santos
DefendantErnest Gomez

Ruling

Jose Javier Garcia Pantoja, et al. v. Ernest Gomez

Minor’s Compromise Petition

Hearing Date: August 21, 2026

PARTIES TO APPEAR regarding the status of the petition to compromise the disputed claims (“Petition”) of 13-year-old Plaintiff Adonai Valez Santos (“Plaintiff”). At the June 9, 2026, Case Management Conference, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s request to reserve August 21 for hearing the Petition. To date, no Petition or supporting papers have been filed. Counsel shall appear on August 21 to discuss the status of the Petition and whether to set a new hearing date.

NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULING This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.

1

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