TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar:    3

Date:               3/24/2023

Case No: 22 BBCP00450

Case Name: Peachtree Settlement Funding of California, LLC v. Manriquez 

PETITION FOR APPROVAL FOR TRANSFER OF STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PAYMENT RIGHTS

Moving Party:               Petitioner Peachtree Settlement Funding of California, LLC

Responding Party:    Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance Company of Nebraska 

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Approval of the transfer of certain structured settlement payment rights

ANALYSIS:

The petition seeks approval of a transfer of certain structured settlement payment rights held by transferor/payee William Manriquez pursuant to a structured settlement entered into on behalf of Manriquez by his then guardian ad litem, intended as compensation for a personal injury claim, arising from an incident which occurred in 2012, when plaintiff was a minor, in which plaintiff sustained personal injuries.  [See Ex. D, Release and Settlement Agreement, para 1 A]. 

The court notes that on December 27, 2022, petitioner filed in this action a Notice of Related Case, designating three previously filed cases are related to this case.  Those cases are:

1) In re Petition of J.G. Wentworth Originations of California, LLC v. W.M.

Case number: 21 BBCP00046

Filed February 8, 2021

Department: A

Status of Case:  Dismissed without prejudice 

2) In re Petition of J.B. Wentworth Originations of California, LLC v. William Manriquez 

Case number:  22 BBCP00089

Filed March 3, 2023

Department: B

Status of Case:  Disposed of by judgment 

3) In re Petition of Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC

Case number:  22 STCP04171

Filed November 23, 2022

Department:  78 

Status of Case:  Dismissed without prejudice

The First Amended Verified Petition, in fact, includes an order in one of the previous cases, LASC Case No. 22 BBCP00089.  The order is dated April 15, 2022, and is signed by John J. Kralik, Judge of the Superior Court, and may impact the current petition.  [First Amended Verified Petition, Ex. F, Order Approving Transfer of Payment Rights Pursuant to California Insurance Code section 10134, et seq., para. 6]. 

This court recognizes that under Insurance Code section 10139.5, which sets forth the factors to be considered by the court in determining whether to approve the transfer of a structured settlement and those factors include: “The transfer does not contravene any applicable statute or the order of any court or other government authority.”  Insurance Code section 10139.5 (a)(4). 

It appears from a review of the files of the three cases designated in the Notice of Related Case that the Notice of Related Case filed in this matter has not been filed in the other cases.  

A Notice of Related Case was filed in the second case, Case number 22 BBCP00089, and in the third case, Case number 22 STCP04171, by the annuity holder on December 19, 2022, which identifies the first and third cases, and was evidently filed in connection with the third case, not this case. It does not appear that the annuity holder’s Notice was acted upon by the judges in either of those two cases.  

The Notice of Related Case filed in this case by petitioner apparently has not been filed in the other cases.  Under CRC Rule 3.300 (d) “The Notice of Related Case must be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice and must be served on all parties in those cases.”  Under subdivision (e), the filing and service must be “as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the facts concerning the existence of related cases become known.” 

Subdivision (h)(1)(A) provides, “Where all the cases listed in the notice are unlimited civil cases,…the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases must be ordered related and assigned to his or her department.”  

Here, since the three listed cases were filed prior to the current petition, which was filed on December 22, 2023, the related case determination or determinations should be made by the judge or judges in the other cases.  This determination should be made before the current petition is considered by this court on its merits.  

Petitioner is accordingly ordered to file and serve the Notice of Related Case filed in this matter in accordance with CRC Rule 3.300 (d).  Under subdivision (g), within 5 days after service on a party of a Notice of Related Case, the party may serve and file a response.  

Petitioner is ordered to seek a related case determination in the other cases by no later than April 7, 2023.  The court notes from the file that the first listed case was pending in the Burbank courthouse, in Department A, and that on February 21, 2023, the court in Department A, the Honorable Frank M. Tavelman presiding, recused itself on this case pursuant to CCP section 170.1.  Petitioner may accordingly be required to pursue a related case determination in connection with the second or third cases designated in the Notice of Related Case. 

This matter is continued for hearing to April 21, 2023, and will be heard only, if in advance of the hearing, a related case determination determining the cases are not related is obtained by petitioner from a judge handling the other cases identified in the Notice of Related Case.  

RULING:

First Amended Verified Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights is CONTINUED to April 21, 2023. 

Petitioner is ORDERED to file and serve the Notice of Related Case filed in this matter on December 27, 2022, in the cases identified in that Notice, in accordance with CRC Rule 3.300 (d).   Petitioner is further ORDERED to take all steps necessary to obtain a related case determination in this matter by no later than April 7, 2023.   

 GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO ADHERE TO HEALTH GUIDANCE THAT DICTATES SAFETY MEASURES, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers free audio and video appearance. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear.  With respect to the wearing of face masks, Department D recognizes that currently, the Los Angeles Department of Public Health strongly recommends masks indoors, especially when interacting with individuals whose vaccination status is unknown; for individuals who have a health condition that puts them at higher risk for severe illness; individuals who live with someone who is at higher risk; and for individuals who are around children who are not yet eligible for vaccines.  In accordance with this guidance, it is strongly recommended that anyone personally appearing in Department D wear a face mask.  The Department D Judge and court staff will continue to wear face masks.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.