Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action
Having considered petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers have been filed.
BACKGROUND
On October 17, 2019, Plaintiffs Dyann Limon, Rayann Lopez, Destanee Casas, and Danyelle Casas filed a complaint against Defendant Oskar Raymundo. The plaintiffs allege motor vehicle negligence arising from an incident that occurred on July 24, 2018.
On November 2, 2020, Petitioner Dyann Limon filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Danyelle Casas
Trial is scheduled for April 15, 2021.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Petitioner asks the Court to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952, subdivision (a), Petitioner and Claimant are required to attend the hearing on the petition. However, the Court finds that Petitioner’s and Claimant’s attendance are not required due to Claimant’s age and the settlement amount.
DISCUSSION
The
Hearing Date
November 24, 2020
Type
Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death - Uninsured Motorist (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action
Having considered petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers have been filed.
BACKGROUND
On October 17, 2019, Plaintiffs Dyann Limon, Rayann Lopez, Destanee Casas, and Danyelle Casas filed a complaint against Defendant Oskar Raymundo. The plaintiffs allege motor vehicle negligence arising from an incident that occurred on July 24, 2018.
On November 2, 2020, Petitioner Dyann Limon filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Danyelle Casas
Trial is scheduled for April 15, 2021.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Petitioner asks the Court to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952, subdivision (a), Petitioner and Claimant are required to attend the hearing on the petition. However, the Court finds that Petitioner’s and Claimant’s attendance are not required due to Claimant’s age and the settlement amount.
DISCUSSION
The