DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
21CECG02886·fresno·Probate·Personal Injury
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

McDaniel v. Athenix Phsyicians Group, Inc. et al.

Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim

Hearing date
Jun 2, 2026
Department
502
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Sep 1, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSusan McDaniel
DefendantAthenix Phsyicians Group, Inc.

Attorneys

Susan McDanielfor Plaintiff

Ruling

(49) Tentative Ruling

Re: McDaniel v. Athenix Phsyicians Group, Inc. et al. Superior Court Case No. 21CECG02886

Hearing Date: June 2, 2026 (Dept. 502)

Motion: Petition to Compromise Minor’s Claim

Tentative Ruling:

To grant. Petitioner Susan McDaniel is directed to file a new proposed order approving compromise, and order to deposit by 5:00 p.m., Friday, June 5, 2026. No appearances are necessary.

To set a status conference for Tuesday, September 1, 2026, at 3:30 p.m., in Department 501, for confirmation of deposit of the minor’s funds into a blocked account. If an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Order and Funds for Deposit in Blocked Account (MC-356) is filed at least five court days before the hearing, the status conference will come off calendar.

Explanation:

The petition appears to be sufficiently stated. However, the proposed orders require attention. On the Order Approving Compromise, under item 9.a., the name of the bank for the blocked account needs to be added; and item 9.c.(2) needs to be checked with the proper date of birth entered. On the Order to Deposit, only one option should be checked at item 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: KCK on 06/01/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

7

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