DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CU00573·fresno·Probate·Probate
Hearing 3 months agoDENIED

Natasha Rodriguez

Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim

Hearing date
May 27, 2026
Department
503
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$70,000$2,788.56$2,749.98$50,000

Parties

PetitionerNatasha Rodriguez

Ruling

(37) Tentative Ruling

Re: Natasha Rodriguez Court Case No. 26CU00573

Hearing Date: May 27, 2026 (Dept. 503)

Motion: Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim

Tentative Ruling:

To deny without prejudice. In the event that oral argument is requested minor is excused from appearing.

Explanation:

According to the petition, the minor has fully recovered from injuries, including a pelvic fracture, received in a car collision on February 9, 2024. The minor is to receive a gross settlement of $70,000 with the balance of the settlement, after attorney fees, costs, and medical expenses, to be deposited in a blocked account. There are several issues with the petition that prevent approval.

First, the Medi-Cal lien is inconsistent with the amount stated in the petition. Attachment 12b(4)(c) shows a lien amount of $2,788.56, not $2,749.98. There is no explanation for why petitioner seeks less than the amount indicated on the lien in this petition.

Second, the court is concerned with the request to deposit the balance of the settlement into a blocked account. The attached medical records indicate that the minor has Trisomy 21. There is no discussion regarding whether the minor is, or may be, on public assistance. There is no discussion addressing whether depositing nearly $50,000 into a blocked account would be in this minor’s best interests.

Finally, the medical reports also name the minor as Natasha A Rodriguez Bucio. The petition names her as Natasha Rodriguez.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 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: JS on 5/22/2026. (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