Moreno v. City of Hayward
- Donna Ryu
- 4:20-cv-07150
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Moreno v. City of Hayward, Judge Ryu denied without prejudice a motion to approve a minor’s settlement because required information was missing.
Jose Alberto Moreno, A.B.M., and A.B.M.’s mother, Lorena Hernandez, were affected by the denial of the settlement-approval motion; the plaintiffs were permitted to submit a new motion with the required information.
What happened
In Jose Alberto Moreno and A.B.M.’s case against the City of Hayward and others, the plaintiffs asked the court to approve a settlement involving A.B.M., a minor.
The motion did not explain the agreement between the lawyers and the plaintiffs or how the lawyers became involved in A.B.M.’s claim. A.B.M.’s mother also did not verify the motion or provide a supporting declaration, and the motion did not explain how the settlement would be divided among the minor, her guardian, and Moreno.
Judge Donna Ryu denied the motion without prejudice and ordered the plaintiffs to file a new motion with the missing information, along with a detailed proposed order, by September 28, 2022.
The detailed version
- Moreno v. City of Hayward · No. 4:20-cv-07150
- Donna Ryu
- Sept. 14, 2022
Background
Jose Alberto Moreno and A.B.M., through A.B.M.’s mother, Lorena Hernandez, moved for approval of a minor’s compromise—a proposed settlement involving a minor. The court applied California Rules of Court 7.950 and 7.951, which require a verified petition, full disclosure of information relevant to whether the compromise is reasonable, and details about the attorney’s involvement and fee agreement. This information helps the court decide whether the settlement is in the minor’s best interests.
Deficiencies in the Motion
The supporting declaration from counsel did not describe the relevant terms of any agreement between counsel and the plaintiffs or explain how counsel became involved with A.B.M.’s claim. Hernandez did not verify the motion or submit a supporting declaration. The motion also lacked details about how the total settlement would be allocated among A.B.M., her guardian, and Moreno.
Ruling
The court denied the motion without prejudice. It ordered the plaintiffs to file a new motion containing the information needed to evaluate the proposed compromise by September 28, 2022, and to file a detailed proposed order granting the motion at the same time. The order was entered by Judge Donna Ryu.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.