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
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.
Oct 13, 2020
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.) N/A Summary of the case.
Oct 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
See above 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).)
Sep 24, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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).)
Sep 23, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Sep 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Aug 31, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Aug 27, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.
Aug 18, 2020
Family Law
Conservatorship
Ventura County, CA
The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.
Aug 18, 2020
Family Law
Conservatorship
Ventura 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.) No Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) N/A Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) N/A __ _______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)
Aug 17, 2020
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).)
Aug 14, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Five Bulls, Anacleto and Does 1-5 for: Breach of Written Agreement Breach of Written Guaranty Money Had and Received Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Common Count Fraud Constructive Trust Unfair Business Practices Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked in Violation of Labor Code § 1198 On July 6, 2020, Five Bulls’ and Anacleto’s defaults were entered.
Aug 12, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Issue No. 35: Plaintiff’s Cartwright Act claim fails because no evidence exists of conspiratorial conduct rather than unilateral conduct. (6th cause of action). Issue No. 36: Plaintiff’s Cartwright Act claim fails because no evidence exists that Emanate coerced anyone to participate in any group boycott. (6th cause of action). Issue No. 37: Plaintiff cannot establish its UCL claim because the UCL does not provide Plaintiff with any remedy against Plaintiff. (4th cause of action).
Aug 06, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
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).) See above Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) See above Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup, supra, 42 Cal.3d 822 at 824.) Yes _____ Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)
Aug 06, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, the Court cannot revisit the issue of defendant’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees under the judgment. Since plaintiff has not challenged the reasonableness of the fees requested, the Court will award defendant attorneys fees in the amount of $7,350. The Clerk will amend the judgment to add attorneys’ fees in that amount and costs in the amount of $391.18 requested in the unchallenged Memorandum of Cost
Aug 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Ecourt records reflect that on October 23, 2019, the court denied Plaintiff’s request for entry of default against Tissuesco for the following reason: “No POS on file, image is for other defendant.” Both proofs of service filed September 25, 2019 are for Chen. Plaintiff must correct the foregoing deficiency before the court will review the sufficiency of the default prove-up package.
Jul 31, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
The declaration lacks the requisite language for admissibility (ie: identification of the place of signing and/or a statement providing “under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California…” if signed outside of California.) To be admissible, a declaration made out-of-state for use in California must state that the statements were made under penalty of California law in material compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5. Kulshrestha v.
Jul 30, 2020
Collections
Promisory Note
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Final Distribution No appearances required. Petition is recommended for approval.
Jul 29, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Leave to amend is thus liberally granted, provided there is no statute of limitations concern. (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 411.)
Jul 29, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
