DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CU02276·fresno·Probate·Probate
Hearing todayDENIED

Noah Williams

Expedited Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
502
Judge
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$730$480$250

Parties

PetitionerNoah Williams

Ruling

(37) Intended Ruling

Re: Noah Williams Superior Court Case No. 26CU02276

Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 (Dept. 502)

Motion: Expedited Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor

Tentative Ruling:

To deny the petition, without prejudice, for the reasons explained below. In the event that oral argument is requested the minor is excused from appearing.

If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Thursday, September 3, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 502.

Explanation:

As identified in the Intended Ruling issued August 24, 2026, according to the petition, the minor has fully recovered from injuries. However, there is no description of the minor’s injuries nor is there a doctor’s report of the minor’s condition reflecting that he has recovered. There are no medical records provided, no description of any medical treatment received as a result of the accident, and no well-child medical reports after the accident.

The Petition requests expenses in the amount of $730 from the settlement including $480 in filing fees and $250 in administration fees. There is no explanation for why the filing fees exceed the standard filing fees. There is no explanation for what administration fees include. The court does not intend to approve charges against the minor’s recovery that are unreasonable. (Prob. Code, § 3601.)

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 8-27-26. (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