Court approval is required for all settlements of a claim for a person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions. (Prob. Code, §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code of Civ. Proc., § 372.) A petition for court approval must be fully completed. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 7.950.)
“When a minor has a disputed claim for damages, money, or other property and does not have a guardian of the estate, the following persons have the right to compromise, or to execute a covenant not to sue on or a covenant not to enforce judgment on, the claim, unless the claim is against such person or persons:
(Prob. Code, § 3500(a).)
The Court must have an opportunity to review the proposed agreement to ensure its terms are in the best interests of the minor. (Pearson v. Super. Ct. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333.)
“The compromise or covenant is valid only after it has been approved, upon the filing of a petition, by the superior court of either of the following counties:
(Prob. Code, § 3500(b).)
The petition “must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement or disposition.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 7.950.) “[T]he petition must be prepared on a fully completed Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim or Pending Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350).” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 7.950.)
Plaintiffs’ CEQA claim is likewise deficient. Given the timing of the phasing out of STRs, there is no evidence that that there is any immediate risk of the environment being adversely affected by the Ordinances. See Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 423-24. Stated simply, Plaintiffs’ claims at this time are speculative.
Sep 29, 2030
Orange County, CA
On March 1, 2019 the Court issued its ruling regarding the interpretation of Section 13.2(f) of the parties’ lease agreement.
Apr 25, 2026
Orange County, CA
The analysis applicable to MaryJane as to the negligence claim applies equally to Evolution. 3. HRB HRB operates the food and beverage facilities, bars and conference rooms in the hotel pursuant to a lease with T-12. Turner moves for summary adjudication only as to HRB’s Second Cause of Action for Negligence. Turner’s motion fails for the same reason explained above relevant to MaryJane’s negligence claim. 4.
Apr 25, 2026
Orange County, CA
originating from the City of Long Beach MS4, Order No.
Jun 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).
Jun 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
with the date of the judgment and the title of the court and the case”).
Feb 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
See below.AFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1: This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE MICHAEL P.
Jan 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)
Jan 22, 2021
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff does not address the disposition of any security deposit. ANALYSIS Yes (2/26/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages.
Jan 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)
Jan 12, 2021
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
See below.AFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1: This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE MICHAEL P.
Jan 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Landin, Judge of the Superior Court
Dec 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) Yes _________ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)
Dec 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
No further hearings are in Dept. 28, Spring StreetAFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE CURTIS A. KIN presiding in DEPT.
Dec 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Dated this 11th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court
Dec 11, 2020
Collections
Collections
Los Angeles County, CA
Dated this 11th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court
Dec 11, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Note: Order Approving Waiver of First Account filed 6-16-2020 authorized 2nd account to be filed by 3-1-2021. JOHN PAUL TURNER LAURA A. ZAMORA TIMOTHY JOHN REID RAILTON FILED ON 08/11/20 BY DEBORAH PHILIPS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proof of personal service of Citation on personal representative. PrC § 8500(b) 3. Proof of mailing to Franchise Tax Board who requested special notice. PrC § 1202 4. Proposed Order Notes: 1.
Dec 10, 2020
George
Contra Costa County, CA
RE: RPT OF SUC T'TEE PET’N FOR INSTRUCTIONS FILED ON 02/19/19 BY GABRIELA B ODELL PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation Note: Response filed by Monica Harrich-Griswold and Jessica Harrich 9-30-19.
Dec 10, 2020
George
Contra Costa County, CA
Declaration addressing creditor claim filed by Far Hills MHP on 8-2-19 for $5,000.00. PrC § 10900; CRC § 7.403. 2. Proposed Order JAMES A WALTERS DANIEL T. QUANE, ESQ. RALPH EDWIN WALTERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Moving paper is in Vol. 3. Need: 1. Appearances to report status, including 9-8-2020 order to meet and confer 2. Proposed Order 3. Note: Objection filed by Janice Bowerman 2-14-20.
Dec 10, 2020
George
Contra Costa County, CA
Proof of mailing a copy of the Petition for Probate to all persons entitled to receive notice. LR 7.151(e) 3. Corrected proof of mailing to verify Proof of Service attached to Notice filed 9-1-2020. 4. Proof of mailing to Terese Merrell, issue of Mark Merrell, trustee of trust and trust beneficiaries or waivers of notice. PrC § 8110; LR 7.151(e) ALFRED LEWIS MERRELL MARK ALFRED MERRELL KEVIN M CORBETT PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2.
Dec 10, 2020
George
Contra Costa County, CA
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated this 10th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court
Dec 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated this 10th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court
Dec 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Do one or the other, but not both: (1) Have a copy of the Notice of Hearing and Petition Form GC-210 personally served on Dontray and file Proof of Service or (2) have Dontray sign a consent and waiver form (GC-211) 4.
Dec 09, 2020
George
Contra Costa County, CA
Dated this 9th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court
Dec 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
As currently pled, the four causes of action named against fail to state sufficient facts against Moving Defendants. Demurrer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Motion to Strike Based upon the recommendation made on the demurrer, Defendants’ motion to strike portions of the complaint is MOOT.
Dec 09, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
