Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/08/2020 at 03:06:06 (UTC).

824 TRUEBLUE, LLC VS AURORA NATIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY

Case Summary

On 06/03/2020 824 TRUEBLUE, LLC filed an Other lawsuit against AURORA NATIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Not Classified By Court.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0149

  • Filing Date:

    06/03/2020

  • Case Status:

    Not Classified By Court

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Glendale Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioner

824 TRUEBLUE LLC

Respondent

AURORA NATIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

GILL SANPREET

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF PROOF OF SERVICE

9/8/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF PROOF OF SERVICE

Notice of Hearing on Petition

9/8/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MIAH JOHNSON

9/8/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MIAH JOHNSON

Petition - PETITION AMENDED PETITION

9/8/2020: Petition - PETITION AMENDED PETITION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW NON APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW COURT...)

10/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW NON APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW COURT...)

Notice - NOTICE OF DECLARATION AND TRANSFER AGREEMENT

10/2/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF DECLARATION AND TRANSFER AGREEMENT

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW NON APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW COURT...) OF 10/02/2020

10/2/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW NON APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW COURT...) OF 10/02/2020

Notice - FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING

10/7/2020: Notice - FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

6/15/2020: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

6/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/16/2020

6/16/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/16/2020

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

6/3/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/3/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Petition - PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF TRANSFER OF STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PAYMENT RIGHTS

6/3/2020: Petition - PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF TRANSFER OF STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PAYMENT RIGHTS

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION]

6/4/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION]

Notice of Hearing on Petition

6/4/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition

4 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/06/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Petition (for Approval for Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights By and Between Luis Araujo-Estrada and 824 Trueblue, LLC pursuant to CA Insurance Code Section 10134, et seq.) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Petition for Approval for Transfer of Structured S...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Petition (for Approval for Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Notice of Hearing; Filed by 824 TrueBlue, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Non-Appearance Case Review (Non Appearance Case Review ? Court Order Continuing Hearing Set On a ?Dark? Date.) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department D; Non-Appearance Case Review (? Court Order Continuing Hearing Set On a ?Dark? Date.) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department D; Non-Appearance Case Review (? Court Order Continuing Hearing Set On a ?Dark? Date.) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Non Appearance Case Review ? Court...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review Non Appearance Case Review ? Court...) of 10/02/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Declaration and Transfer Agreement); Filed by 824 TrueBlue, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
3 More Docket Entries
  • 09/08/2020
  • DocketPetition (Amended Petition); Filed by 824 TrueBlue, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • Docketat 10:18 AM in Department B; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 06/16/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2020
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by 824 TrueBlue, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Notice of Hearing on Petition]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2020
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by 824 TrueBlue, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • DocketPetition (for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights); Filed by 824 TrueBlue, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20BBCP00149    Hearing Date: November 06, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 11

Date: 11/6/2020

Case No: 20 BBCP00149

Case Name: 824 Trueblue, LLC v. Aurora National Life Assurance Company (Araujo-Estrada)

PETITION FOR APPROVAL FOR TRANSFER OF STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PAYMENT RIGHTS

[Insurance Code §10134 et. seq.]

Moving Party: Petitioner 824 Trueblue, LLC

Responding Party: No Opposition

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Approve transfer of structured settlement payment rights by and between Luis Araujo-Estrada, as transferor, and 824 Trueblue, LLC, as transferee.

ANALYSIS:

Procedural

Copies of Documents

Under Insurance Code § 10139.5:

“ (f)    (1) A petition under this article for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights shall be made by the transferee and brought in the county in which the payee resides at the time the transfer agreement is signed by the payee, or, if the payee is not domiciled in California, in the county in which the payee resides or in the county where the structured settlement obligor or annuity issuer is domiciled.  (2) Not less than 20 days prior to the scheduled hearing on any petition for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights under this article, the transferee shall file with the court and serve on all interested parties a notice of the proposed transfer and the petition for its authorization, and shall include the following with that notice:     (A) A copy of the transferee's current petition and any other prior petition, whether approved or withdrawn, that was filed with the court in accordance with paragraph (6) of subdivision (c).     (B) A copy of the proposed transfer agreement and disclosure form required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (a).     (C) A listing of each of the payee's dependents, together with each dependent's age.     (D) A copy of the disclosure required in subdivision (b) of Section 10136.    (E) A copy of the annuity contract, if available.     (F) A copy of any qualified assignment agreement, if available.     (G) A copy of the underlying structured settlement agreement, if available.     (H) If a copy of a document described in subparagraph (E), (F), or (G) is unavailable or cannot be located, then the transferee is not required to attach a copy of that document to the petition or notice of the proposed transfer if the transferee satisfies the court that reasonable efforts to locate and secure a copy of the document have been made, including making inquiry with the payee. If the documents are available, but contain a confidentiality or nondisclosure provision, then the transferee shall summarize in the petition the payments due and owing to the payee, and, if requested by the court, shall provide copies of the documents to the court at a scheduled hearing.”

Here, the petition fails to include a copy of the annuity contract (only a benefits document is submitted), the qualified assignment agreement, or the underlying structured settlement agreement. The Johnson Declaration indicates that 824 Trueblue has contacted the payee, annuity issuer, and requested court records but has been unable to locate these documents. [Johnson Decl. ¶ 1]. That declaration, however, identifies as the payee contacted, Joshua Leon Garrett, not the actual payee, Luis Araujo-Estrada. However, the declaration also includes a Declaration in Lieu of Settlement Agreement confirming that Araujo-Estrada has searched for but been unable to locate a copy of the Settlement Agreement. [See Johnson Decl., Ex. B, Araujo-Estrada Decl. ¶3]. A copy of the Order Approving Compromise of Minor’s Claim is submitted, which appears to reflect that payee Araujo-Estrada was the only party to the claim. [Johnson Decl., Ex. C]. The court finds that reasonable efforts have been made to locate and secure copies of the documents.

There is also no copy of the records of two previous attempted transfers.

Under Insurance Code § 10139.5

“(c) Every petition for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights, except as provided in subdivision (d), shall include, to the extent known after the transferee has made reasonable inquiry with the payee, all of the following:   “ (6) Information regarding previous transfers or attempted transfers, as described in paragraph (11), (12), or (13) of subdivision (b). The transferee or payee may choose to provide this information by providing copies of pleadings, transaction documents, or orders involving any previous attempted or completed transfer or by providing the court a summary of available information regarding any previous transfer or attempted transfer, such as the date of the transfer or attempted transfer, the payments transferred or attempted to be transferred by the payee in the earlier transaction, the amount of money received by the payee in connection with the previous transaction, and generally the payee's reasons for pursuing or completing a previous transaction. The transferee's inability to provide the information required by this paragraph shall not preclude the court from approving the proposed transfer, if the court determines that the information is not available to the transferee after the transferee has made a reasonable effort to secure the information, including making an inquiry with the payee.”

The court finds that the descriptions of the previous transfers set forth in the Johnson Declaration are sufficient. [See Johnson Decl. ¶ 7].

Substantive

The petition seeks approval of a transfer of certain structured settlement payment rights held by transferor Luis Araujo-Estrada pursuant to a structured settlement entered into evidently some time prior to April 15, 1986, when the minor’s compromise matter was heard, and the settlement was intended as compensation for a wrongful death claim, as Araujo-Estrada’s mother passed away in 1984. [Araujo-Estrada Decl. ¶ 3].

Araujo-Estrada is now 42 years old, single, with no dependents. Araujo-Estrada is self-employed as an electrician and earns approximately $7,000 per month or $84,000 per year, and indicates he does not rely on the money from the structured settlement for day-to-day living expenses. [Araujo-Estrada Decl. ¶ 4]. He has no court ordered child support or maintenance obligations. [Araujo-Estrada Decl. ¶ 5].

Araujo-Estrada has previously assigned a portion of his payment rights. The Johnson Declaration describes two previous attempts at transfer of structured settlement payments, one of which was approved, and one ultimately dismissed. [Johnson Decl.¶ 7]. The declaration indicates that in 2010, Araujo-Estrada sold to J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC monthly payments of $114.94 beginning September 15, 2010 through February 15, 2013, and March 15, 2013 through April 16, 2026, and one lump sum payment of $8,000, due on March 2, 2013, and received $10,000 which was used to start up Araujo-Estrada’s electrician business.

The current transaction is with 824 Trueblue. Araujo-Estrada is transferring 70 monthly payments of $85.06 beginning July 15, 2020, through and including April 15, 2026, and 287 monthly life contingent payments of $200 beginning May 15, 2026 through and including March 15, 2050.

The total dollar amount of payments being sold is $63,354.20, with a discounted present value of $55,623.75. The net amount to be paid to Araujo-Estrada is $1,892.24, with no deduction for expenses.

Araujo-Estrada states that with the funds he will purchase work tools and modify his work truck by installing a rack. [Araujo-Estrada Decl. ¶ 7]. He indicates that these purchases are investments into his business which would help improve his ability to earn a good living and potentially increase his business income. [Araujo-Estrada Decl. ¶ 7].

Under Insurance Code section 10137(a):

“A transfer of structured settlement payment rights is void unless a court reviews and approves the transfer and finds the following conditions are met:  (a) The transfer of the structured settlement payment rights is fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of his or her dependents.  (b) The transfer complies with the requirements of this article, will not contravene other applicable law, and the court has reviewed and approved the transfer as provided in Section 10139.5.”

Insurance Code section 10139.5 provides the factors to be considered by the court in determining whether to approve the transfer of a structured settlement. The highlighted factors are those which are of some concern in connection with this petition.

(a)  Whether, when the settlement was completed, the future periodic payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer were intended to pay for the future medical care and treatment of the payee relating to injuries sustained by the payee in the incident that was the subject of the settlement and whether the payee still needs those future payments to pay for that future care and treatment.  (6) Whether, when the settlement was completed, the future periodic payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer were intended to provide for the necessary living expenses of the payee and whether the payee still needs the future structured settlement payments to pay for future necessary living expenses.  (7) Whether the payee is, at the time of the proposed transfer, likely to require future medical care and treatment for the injuries that the payee sustained in connection with the incident that was the subject of the settlement and whether the payee lacks other resources, including insurance, sufficient to cover those future medical expenses.  (8) Whether the payee has other means of income or support, aside from the structured settlement payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer, sufficient to meet the payee's future financial obligations for maintenance and support of the payee's dependents, specifically including, but not limited to, the payee's child support obligations, if any. The payee shall disclose to the transferee and the court his or her court-ordered child support or maintenance obligations for the court's consideration.  (9) Whether the financial terms of the transaction, including the discount rate applied to determine the amount to be paid to the payee, the expenses and costs of the transaction for both the payee and the transferee, the size of the transaction, the available financial alternatives to the payee to achieve the payee's stated objectives, are fair and reasonable.  (10) Whether the payee completed previous transactions involving the payee's structured settlement payments and the timing and size of the previous transactions and whether the payee was satisfied with any previous transaction.  (11) Whether the transferee attempted previous transactions involving the payee's structured settlement payments that were denied, or that were dismissed or withdrawn prior to a decision on the merits, within the past five years.  (12) Whether, to the best of the transferee's knowledge after making inquiry with the payee, the payee has attempted structured settlement payment transfer transactions with another person or entity, other than the transferee, that were denied, or which were dismissed or withdrawn prior to a decision on the merits, within the past five years.  (13) Whether the payee, or his or her family or dependents, are in or are facing a hardship situation.  (14) Whether the payee received independent legal or financial advice regarding the transaction. The court may deny or defer ruling on the petition for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights if the court believes that the payee does not fully understand the proposed transaction and that independent legal or financial advice regarding the transaction should be obtained by the payee.  (15) Any other factors or facts that the payee, the transferee, or any other interested party calls to the attention of the reviewing court or that the court determines should be considered in reviewing the transfer.”

The funds being transferred appear to be all the remaining payments which would be due, so this may be the last transfer of funds. The court will confirm this at the hearing, and ensure that the payee understands the circumstances.

Overall, the funds were intended to provide living expenses for Araujo-Estrada due to the death of his mother, and he does not appear to require the continuing financial support, but is an adult, with no dependents, and is able to provide for himself without the payments.

However, this is an extremely unfavorable transaction for the transferor, and appears unfair to the transferor, and the court will inquire if there is any other possible way for Araujo-Estrada to fund his business improvements.

The court does not have before it the actual annuity contract or other documents to confirm that these sums are not subject to a non-assignment clause. The Declaration in Lieu of Settlement Agreement states that Araujo-Estrada affirms that there is no prohibition in the underlying settlement agreement which would prohibit him from assigning his payment rights. [Johnson Decl., Ex. B, Decl., para. 5].

The issue of whether nonassignment clauses bar a structured settlement transfer has been addressed by case law, and the court of appeal has concluded that where notice has been provided to the interested parties, and no objection is made, the court is authorized to consider the petition regardless of the existence of a nonassignment clause:

“The superior court, however, did conclude that public policy bars the waiver of the contractual antiassignment clauses with respect to factoring transactions. We disagree. We conclude that California Uniform Commercial Code section 9408 evidences a public policy against antiassignment provisions in general and that the SSTA, Insurance Code section 10136 et seq., evidences a public policy in favor of court-approved factoring transactions. Thus, public policy favors the legal conclusion that antiassignment provisions do not bar court-approved transfers of structured settlement payments. Therefore, we conclude that, where no interested parties object to the transfer of structured settlement payment rights, the antiassignment provisions in the annuity contract, settlement agreement or other related contracts do not bar the factoring transaction at issue in this appeal.

321 Henderson Receivables Origination LLC v. Sioteco (2009) 173 Cal. App.4th 1059, 1075-1076.

The document submitted to show the benefits due shows addresses of First Executive Corp. in Wilmington, DE and Executive Life Insurance Company Inglewood, CA, while the proofs of service show service at various other addresses on Aurora National Life Assurance Company, and FL Assignments Corporation. The court will confirm at the hearing that all interested parties have been served, including the proper annuity company, and have received appropriate notice of the petition hearing to object, and that no objection has been received.

RULING:

[Make inquiry concerning:

Address in proof of service of annuity holder, why not to address reflected in annuity benefits document?

What efforts made to obtain required documents; the payee who was questioned is not the payee identified in the petition?

Is this the last practicable transfer of rights to payments, is payor aware that this will be the last transfer of rights to payments?

Is payor able to fund his business improvement by other means—extremely lopsided transaction—has payor consulted other businesses willing to accept transfer of payments?]

First Amended Petition for Approval for Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights is GRANTED subject to court review set forth above, especially the extremely low net payment to Araujo-Estrada of $1,892.24.

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court. Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer GILL SANPREET