What is a Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim?

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.)

Legal Standard

“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:

  1. Either parent if the parents of the minor are not living separate and apart.
  2. The parent having the care, custody, or control of the minor if the parents of the minor are living separate and apart.”

(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.)

Procedure

“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:

  1. The county where the minor resides when the petition is filed.
  2. Any county where suit on the claim or matter properly could be brought.”

(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.)

Useful Rulings on Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim

Recent Rulings on Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

On March 1, 2019 the Court issued its ruling regarding the interpretation of Section 13.2(f) of the parties’ lease agreement.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

originating from the City of Long Beach MS4, Order No.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

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).

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

with the date of the judgment and the title of the court and the case”).

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

CEMEX USA, INC. VS ATILANO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

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).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MARK LIU VS XUEFAN LIU

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).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

Landin, Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

AVITUS INC. VS ANDIAMO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

HASMIK KANATARYAN, ET AL. VS CHARLENE SARSTEDT, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS TOTAL BODY EXPERTS LLC, ET AL.

Dated this 11th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

KOEN WOO KIM VS CENTRAL FITNESS, LP, ET AL.

Dated this 11th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RE: PET’N FOR APRVL OF AMENDED FIRST ACCT & RPT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE,

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE LLOYD W HARRICH TRUST

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: 1ST & FNL ACCT & RPT OF ADMNTR & PET’N FOR SETTLEMENT & FNL DIST

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE BOWERMAN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SHAFIQ SIDIQI VS GAYANE BALABANYAN

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

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

GRDSHP OF SCOTT

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES LLC VS MICHAEL D. GARRIS

Dated this 9th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

HAI YING RUAN, ET AL. VS CUONG THOAI DIEP, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.