Expedited Petition to Compromise Claim of Minor
(37) Intended Ruling
Re: In the Matter of Gomez Superior Court Case No. 26CU00752
Hearing Date: June 2, 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.
Explanation:
As identified in the Intended Ruling issued May 22, 2026, according to the petition, the minor has fully recovered from injuries including bilateral ear pain, neck pain, and lower back pain received in a car collision on January 16, 2025. The minor is to receive a gross settlement of $15,000 with the balance of the settlement after attorney fees and litigation costs to be deposited in a blocked account. There are several issues with the petition that prevent approval.
The Petition indicates that the balance will be deposited into a blocked account. Petitioner failed to include Attachment 19b(2) to identify where these funds will be deposited.
The Petition at Item 9a indicates that the minor has recovered completely from her injuries, however, the most recent doctor’s report, from December 17, 2025, indicates the minor is still experiencing bilateral ear pain and moderate neck and back pain. Dr. Roofian advised follow up for the ear pain with an ear, nose, and throat specialist. There is no indication of any further treatment or that the ear pain resolved. There is no declaration from the petitioner confirming the minor’s injuries resolved without further treatment or a well-child visit with her regular doctor dated after December 17, 2025.
The Petition requests expenses in the amount of $432.80. Counsel generally claims these fees include fees for obtaining medical records and billing, document preparation, postage and delivery expenses, telephone and communication expenses, and administrative costs. No itemized statement was provided. 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
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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)
6