DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CECG01228·fresno·Civil·Probate
Hearing todayPetitioner Jessica Cox and counsel of record are directed to personally appear. Claimant Jacob Cox is excused from appearing.

In re Jacob Cox

Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
403
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$3,240.00$30,336.15$25,966.23$30,000.00

Parties

PetitionerJessica Cox
OtherJacob Cox

Ruling

(35) Tentative Ruling

Re: In re Jacob Cox Superior Court Case No. 25CECG01228

Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 (Dept. 403)

Motion: Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim

Tentative Ruling:

Petitioner Jessica Cox and counsel of record are directed to personally appear. Claimant Jacob Cox is excused from appearing.

Explanation:

Petitioner Jessica Cox (“Petitioner”) seeks review of a proposed compromise of a claim by claimant Jacob Cox (“Claimant”) for a third time. Previously, the court identified certain issues with medical expenses, and a claim by Petitioner against Claimant’s compromise for lost wages. In what the court can only conclude is a bold adjustment, Petitioner’s claim for lost wages in the amount of $3,240.00 has disappeared, and the total settlement has been reduced from its prior reported $30,336.15, to $25,966.23. No attempt to explain the reduction was included.

Neither has there been any attempt to explain why the previously reported $30,336.15 reflects the value of the claim, policy limits, or any combination of reasons. Counsel has submitted that policy limits in this action are $30,000.00. No indication was made that the insured was contributing previously, and no indication is given now as to why $25,966.23, which is under policy limits is appropriate.

In light of the history of the claims against Claimant’s compromise, and of the unexplained reduction of the compromise amount, Petitioner and counsel of record are directed to personally appear and give explanation as to the reduction in Claimant’s compromise.

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 31, 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