DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV142443·alameda·Civil·Minor's Compromise
Hearing 3 months agoDENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

WILLIAMS-SMITH vs YAO

Petition to Confirm Minor’s Compromise

Hearing date
Jun 10, 2026
Department
19
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJaida Williams-Smith
DefendantYao
OtherJanee Williams

Ruling

25CV142443: WILLIAMS-SMITH vs YAO 06/10/2026 Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise filed by Jaida Williams- Smith (Minor) CRS# 533127700157 in Department 19

Tentative Ruling - 06/08/2026 Joscelyn Jones

The Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim filed by Jaida Williams-Smith on 01/23/2026 is Denied.

The Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim of minor Plaintiff Jaida Williams-Smith is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

On September 15, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application for appointment of Janee Williams as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem. Janee Williams is not a named plaintiff in this case, and the application did not disclose that Janee Williams is asserting her own claim for monetary damages against Defendant for the same accident that is the subject of this lawsuit.

If the Court had been informed that Janee Williams is asserting her own claim for monetary damages against Defendant for that accident, it would not have appointed Janee Williams as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff. Other than in exceptional circumstances, the Court will generally decline to appoint as guardian ad litem an individual who has his or her own claims for monetary damages against a defendant, due the potential for a conflict of interest in the allocation of damages as between the plaintiff and the proposed guardian ad litem.

The Court VACATES the September 25, 2025 order appointing Janee Williams as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to file a new application for appointment of guardian ad litem for Plaintiff, selecting a guardian ad litem other than Janee Williams (or any other person who may also have a claim against Defendant arising from the same accident that is the subject of this lawsuit.)

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