DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CU02278·fresno·Civil·Probate
Hearing todayDENIED

In re Deandre Hill Jr

Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim

Hearing date
Aug 25, 2026
Department
403
Judge
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerDeandre Hill Jr

Ruling

(20) Tentative Ruling

Re: In re Deandre Hill Jr Superior Court Case No. 26CU02278

Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 (Dept. 403)

Motion: Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim

Tentative Ruling:

To deny the petition, without prejudice. Petitioner must file an amended petition, and obtain a new hearing date for consideration of the amended petition. (Super. Ct. Fresno County, Local Rules, rule 2.8.4.)

Explanation:

The petition at issue is denied without prejudice due to the following deficiencies.

First, there is no indication whether the settlement is paid by insurance, and if so, the policy limits.

Second, the petition fails to provide a report of the minor’s current condition. Paragraph 8 of the petition states, “An original or a photocopy of any doctor's report containing a diagnosis of the claimant's injuries or a prognosis for the claimant's recovery, and a report of the claimant's current condition, must be attached to this petition as Attachment 8. A new report is not necessary if a previous report accurately describes the claimant's current condition.” The petition must contain full disclosure of all information that has any bearing on the reasonableness of the settlement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.) Given that the medical records show that the minor was still experiencing pain months after the accident, petitioner shall provide a doctor’s report of the her present condition.

Third, counsel provides a declaration supporting the request for attorney fees, but the declaration is exceptionally vague and generic, providing no actual information other than the amount of attorney fees requested. (See Attach. 13a.) Moreover, the retainer agreement provides attorney fees would be divided as follows: 19% percent to Sky Legal, APC; and 81% percent to BD&J, PC. It is unclear if counsel intends to split fees in this manner, and whether Sky Legal performed any legal services on behalf of the minor.

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: SMC on August 24, 2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date) 3

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