In re: Maya Jefferson

(46) Tentative Ruling

Re: In re: Maya Jefferson Superior Court Case No. 26CU02209

Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 (Dept. 502)

Motion: Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim of Minor

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:

Item 1: Petitioner’s Standing

Petitioner Matthew Jefferson (“Petitioner”) is the minor’s father and was appointed her guardian ad litem by court order on July 31, 2026. Although Petitioner received assistance with this petition from the attorney retained by the Respondents’ insurance carrier (see Petn., Item 17; Attachments 17d and 17e), Petitioner filed this petition in pro per.

A non-attorney appointed as guardian ad litem cannot act in pro per, as this would constitute the unlawful practice of law. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125; J.W. v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 958, 965.) A petition brought by a guardian ad litem must be filed by an attorney. However, no guardian ad litem is needed in a minor’s compromise when the custodial parent is the petitioner. If the minor’s parents live together, either may bring the petition. If the minor’s parents are living separate and apart, then the parent having the care, custody, and control of the minor may bring the petition. (Prob. Code, § 3500, subd. (a).)

Here, Petitioner cannot bring this petition as guardian ad litem, and it is unclear from the Petition whether Petitioner is the custodial parent pursuant to the Code section. The medical records also reference “Cayla Jefferson” as the minor’s parent. (Petn., PDF p. 24/83.) However, the parties’ settlement agreement refers to her as “Cayla Heflebower, not married,” separate from the minor’s “parent, Matthew Jefferson[.]” (Id., PDF p. 67/83; see also Petn. Attachment 11b(6).) It is not made clear if Cayla1 is the minor’s mother and, if so, whether she lives separate or apart from Mr. Jefferson.

As the father of the claimant acting in pro per, Petitioner must sufficiently explain to the court that either: both parents live together and care for the minor, or, that he is the parent who has care, custody, and control of the minor. Without sufficiently

1 Due to the association of multiple surnames, Cayla is referred to by first name only and no

disrespect is intended. 6

establishing his status as the custodial parent and thus proper petitioner, the petition must be denied.

Item 8: Evidence of Claimant’s Recovery

Item 8a of the Petition indicates the minor claimant has recovered completely from her injuries. However, the medical records provided in Attachment 8 appear to be from her initial treatment of the injury, without inclusion of medical records reflecting any follow up that demonstrates the claimant’s full recovery.

Item 12: Medical Expenses

There is a discrepancy in the amount of medical expenses claimed and the amount demonstrated as paid or adjusted.

The petition states that the total amount of medical expenses was $29,888.13, but then only acknowledges $4,733.34 as paid. (Petn., Item 12a.) Any reductions of the remainder should be clearly disclosed.

The total amount of medical expenses listed at 12a(1) is the sum of the statements for American Ambulance and Community Medical Centers. Petitioner attaches a statement from American Ambulance for $1,930.00 that was paid/adjusted in full by CalViva. (Petn., PDF p. 24/83.) Petitioner attaches an itemized statement from Community Medical Centers for $27,958.13 that was paid/adjusted in full by Medi-Cal and “Generic Auto Carrier Payments.” (Id., PDF p. 62/83.)

Petitioner attaches a Medi-Cal lien reduction notice reflecting that Medi-Cal paid $5,644.45 on the minor’s behalf and reduced the lien to $4,733.34. (Petn., PDF p. 77/83.) The notice includes a page titled “Injury-Related Services Paid by the Medi-Cal Program” which lists 11 providers, only one of which was disclosed by Petitioner (i.e. Community Medical Centers aka “Fresno Community Hospital.”) (Petn., PDF pp. 80-81/83.) The other 10 providers were not listed in the petition, nor bills provided to demonstrate the total amounts of their charges and whether there are any remaining balances owed to any of them.

The total amount of medical expenses at Item 12a should reflect accurate charges and adjustments regarding these providers, and any available balance statements should be provided to reflect the totals charged, paid, and/or adjusted to ensure there are no outstanding balances for any of these providers. Further, these providers should be disclosed in the petition at Item 12b(5).

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: lmg on 8-21-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date) 7