Is a near-adult ward's right to due process violated by California's law allowing courts to settle actions involving the minor without the minor's knowledge, participation, or consent; without an appointment of a guardian ad litem; over the minor's and his parents' objections, and without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine if the settlement is in the minor's best interest?

QUESTION PRESENTED The 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides that “No state ... shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” In Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) this Court held that while “due process” fundamentally requires notice and opportunity to be heard, the quality of the required notice and hearing in a given case depends on the interests at issue, likelihood of erroneous deprivations of that interest, and practicability. The courts below held that— under California’s Code of Civil Procedure §372(a)(1) and Probate Code §3500(b)—the trial judge had unilateral authority to negotiate and settle a nearadult ward’s legal claims in nine interrelated litigations without notice to the minor or holding an evidentiary hearing, notwithstanding his and his mother’s objections. Other states, such as Texas, always require an evidentiary hearing prior to permanently binding a minor to a settlement. The question presented is: Is a near-adult ward’s right to due process violated by California’s law allowing courts to settle actions involving the minor without the minor’s knowledge, participation, or consent; without an appointment of a guardian ad litem; over the minor’s and his parents’ objections, and without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine if the settlement is in the minor’s best interest?