Raul Mezacambron, Sr et al v Caleb Young Joon Choe

Case Number

22CV02653

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 11/13/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Minor’s Compromise

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs: Alan Fenton, Bradford Brown

Defendant: Colette Asel

RULING

Mr. Brown needs to file a new and thorough Petition for approval of minor’s compromise on or before 11/27/24 and include information that we need to look at and analyze to ensure that it is set up properly and in the best interests of the minor. The Hearing should be set for [no earlier than] 12/18/24.   

Background

The Court dismissed the case with prejudice at the May 15, 2024, CMC. Mr. Brown then advised the Court that only recently he learned of the dismissal because there had been no notice. He informed the Court that the dismissal needed to be vacated and a continued CMC re minor’s compromise needs to be calendared by the Court, pending a hearing on Plaintiff’s proposed petition for approval of compromise of claim for minor, which he attached to the declaration. He advised that there will be no opposition to the motion.

He told the Court he could not bring the motion sooner since the petition was delayed because the final amount of the Medi-Cal lien for the minor was slowed due to the similarity in the Plaintiff’s names.

The Court did what he asked, and the dismissal was vacated.

There was a CMCS filed by Mr. Brown on 11/1/24 and set for 11/6/24. Counsel suggested in that CMCS that the Court include the minor's compromise hearing on the date and time of the 11/6/24 hearing at the Case Management Conference instead of waiting until the scheduled date of January 8, 2025. There is no scheduled minor’s compromise on 1/8/25 and there is not now any minor’s compromise scheduled for any date.

At the hearing on 11/6/24 there was a colloquy between Mr. Brown, the Court and Ms. Asel. The Court gave a signal to counsel at the 11/6/24 Calendar call that it would consider a minor’s compromise on 11/13/24. But that signal or suggestion is now rescinded. That will not be what we will do.

The Court wants to give counsel a heads-up. Despite the foregoing signal the Court has done new research on the matter, and now changed its mind. A formal motion needs to be filed and set for a hearing.