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

OSCAR ESCOBEDO, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER , ET AL.

The Court made the following order on 9-18-20: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 EAST DISTRICT, JUDGE GLORIA QHITE-BROWN presiding in DEPT.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

Such order shall not be considered to be a determination on the merits of the claim or any defense thereto and shall not be given in evidence or referred to at the trial. (CC § 3295(c).) “[B]efore a trial court may enter an order allowing discovery of financial condition information under Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (c), it must (1) weigh the evidence presented by both sides, and (2) make a finding that it is very likely the plaintiff will prevail on his claim for punitive damages.” (Jabro v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, 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.) No Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MANUEL ALEJANDRE VS CAL-VILLA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

The court must take into account relevant factors, including the history of the case, the past conduct of counsel as it reflects upon the bona fides of their efforts, the nature and extent of the actual efforts expended, the nature of the discovery requested, its importance to the case, and the size and complexity of the case. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 428-37.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT A. MATTHEWS

Notice of the Conservatee's Death was filed by Conservator on 6/17/20. Status Report Hearing shall go off calendar. The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

DISCUSSION As a preliminary matter, Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the December 5, 2019, Minute Order and the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is GRANTED. DEMURRER 1st Cause of Action: Negligent Misrepresentation Statute of Limitations Defendants contend that the 1st cause of action is time-barred because Plaintiff failed to bring the claim within three years of the statute beginning to run.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

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

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANTIAGO MENDOZA MUNIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

On May 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Muniz and Does 1-100 for: Breach of Written Agreement Claim and Delivery Conversion Account Stated Unjust Enrichment Breach of Guaranty On July 8, 2020, Muniz’s default was entered. On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed two “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Dragon 9 Logistics Group (“Dragon”) was named in lieu of Doe 11 and Tom Zhang (“Zhang”) was named in lieu of Doe 12.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

On September 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Contract) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Tort) Negligent Maintenance of Premises Maintenance of Nuisance Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Retaliatory Eviction (Civil Code § 1942.5) Compel Mediation On November 14, 2019, Defendant’s default was entered.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

(¶I.7) “Claim Form” means a form to be used by Class Members to make a Claim.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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.) N/A Summary of the case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ACCOUNTING SET BY D14 ON 1/15/20

Notice of Filing Inventory & Appraisal Form GC-042 filed and Proof of Service re: same PrC § 2610 4.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION AND FOR STLMT OF FIRST AND FINAL ACCT FILED ON 05/13/20 BY BABARA WAGNER

Notice of Filing Inventory & Appraisal Form GC-042 filed and Proof of Service re: same PrC § 2610 10.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST AMENDED PET’N FOR APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTING (MADISON)

Increase in market value of $1,612.29 reported in Summary of Account only affects fair market value schedule and should not be included in Summary of Account. 10. File a verified declaration to specify recipient of first quarter distribution of $5,600.00 on 3-31-19. Was LPL the recipient or some other tax entity? Petition states it was to cover the tax liability. 11. Notice of Filing Inventory & Appraisal Form GC-042 filed and Proof of Service re: same PrC § 2610 12.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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.) N/A Summary of the case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

ESTATE OF DOUGLAS S ROBINSON

Parental Notification of Indian Status Form ICWA-020 filed 5. Court Investigator’s Report 6. Proposed Order The Court is waiting for these items: 1. Report of Atty. Summer Selleck 2. Report of Atty. Robert O. Morris

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: TRAILING: ELIZ ROSNER'S CREDITORS CLAIM SET BY DEPT.30

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition for Approval of Settlement Agreement and in Response to Linda Rosner’s Frivolous Objection filed 8- 21-2020 by Nicolas Rosner and C. Jeff Brinton requests affirmative relief and must be calendared and noticed for relief to be considered. 4. Reply to Response to Objection of Linda Fuentes Rosner filed 9-18-2020 by Linda Fuentes Rosner.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST AND FNL RPT ON WVR OF ACCT, FOR COMPENSATION, FINAL DIST

Verified declaration by petitioner to state names, current addresses and relationships of all persons entitled to receive notice so court can confirm mailing. LR 7.112 2. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify statement ¶ 19 that Franchise Tax Board filed a Creditor’s Claim. It appears no claim was filed. 3. Verified declaration by petitioner to specify plan of distribution, including approximate amount of cash to be distributed to each beneficiary. LR 7.301 4.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: STATUS OF SETTLEMENT RE PET’N DET VALIDITY SET BY DEPT.30 (FILED

09/04/18 BY C.J.BRINTON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status of settlement PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status of settlement

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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.