DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV073471·alameda·Civil·Minor's Compromise
Hearing todayThe Court is not currently inclined to grant this petition

GABREAB, et al. vs RIDS BROTHER COMPANY INC, et al.

Petition to Confirm Minor’s Compromise

Hearing date
Aug 24, 2026
Department
19
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$21,346$20,000

Parties

PlaintiffZimam Gabreab
PlaintiffNaemen Fasil
DefendantRIDS BROTHER COMPANY INC

Ruling

24CV073471: GABREAB, et al. vs RIDS BROTHER COMPANY INC, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise filed by Zimam Gabreab (Guardian Ad Litem) CRS# 166451928865 in Department 19

Tentative Ruling - 08/21/2026 Joscelyn Jones

On the Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim of Person with Disability, COUNSEL ARE TO APPEAR (by Zoom, if they prefer.)

The petition seeks an order that the settlement funds be deposited into a special needs trust for the benefit if Naemen Fasil. The petition indicates that petitioner is seeking to establish a special needs trust in a separate petition filed in the probate department of Alameda Count Superior Court. However, petitioner does not provide any information about the status of that case, or when the petition in probate court is expected to be approved.

The Court is not currently inclined to grant this petition and sign an order authorizing payment of the settlement funds to Plaintiff’s counsel prior to establishment of the special needs trust, or at a minimum without further information about when the special needs trust will be established.

Petitioner’s counsel shall be prepared to address this issue, and to provide further information about the petition being filed in the probate department of Alameda County Superior Court (including, inter alia, when that petition was filed, and the case number for that action.)

The Court also observes that the proposed order incorrectly indicates (in paragraph 8(a)(1)) that $21,346 of the settlement funds are being allocated to petitioner’s attorneys’ fees. In fact, the petition appears to seek $20,000 in attorneys’ fees. Any costs incurred by petitioner’s counsel should be indicated in paragraph 8(a)(2) of the proposed order.

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