Reset


Private

civil tentative rulings


The court does not issue tentative rulings on Writs of Attachment, Writs of Possession, Claims of Exemption, Claims of Right to Possession, Motions to Tax Costs After Trial, Motions for New Trial, or Motions to Continue Trial.


Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 701, any party opposed to the tentative ruling must notify the court, and other parties, by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of their intention to appear for oral argument. The court's notice must be made by facsimile to 559-733-6774.


Timestamp: 04/25/2017 at 7:00pm



 

Re:                     Bank of America, N.A. v. Ruiz

Case No:           PCL175096

Date:                  April 26, 2017

Time:                 8:30 A.M. 

Dept.:                 16 - The Honorable Glade Roper

Motion:              Plaintiff’s Motion To Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

Tentative Ruling:  To Grant Plaintiff’s Motion To Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and to Order Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, Requests numbered 1 through 10 are deemed admitted.

Plaintiff’s moving papers are sufficient to establish that Plaintiff propounded its Requests for Admission to Defendant Ernesto G. Ruiz on December 1, 2016.  Defendant has not responded to the discovery and the time for such response has expired.  On January 26, 2017 and February 9, 2017 Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendant concerning the lack of discovery responses.  Plaintiff’s motion was filed on March 21, 2017.  Proof of service in the file indicates that notice of the motion was provided to Defendant.  No response to the motion has been filed.  Under the circumstances, Plaintiff is entitled to an order having the requests for admission deemed admitted.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Re:                     Gonzalez v. Barajas

Case No:            PCU262386

Date:                  April 26, 2017

Time:                  8:30 A.M. 

Dept.:                 16 - The Honorable Glade Roper

Motion:               Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Settlement and For Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Tentative Ruling:  To Grant Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Settlement Agreement and to Grant the Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint.  Defendant shall file and serve its Cross-Complaint within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

Proof of service in the file indicates notice of the motion and notice of Defendant’s proposed Cross-Complaint were adequate.  No response to the motion has been filed.

Defendant’s moving papers are sufficient to establish that Defendant is entitled to the relief requested due to an undisclosed second trust deed encumbering the property which is the subject of the parties’ prior settlement.  Defendant has also established she is entitled to file her cross-complaint, also based on the undisclosed second trust deed allegedly obtained by Plaintiff.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.


Re:                     Jacob, Joseph, & Associates, LLC, Petitioner; Daryn Brackeen, Payee

Case No:           PCU268654

Date:                  April 26, 2017

Time:                 8:30 A.M. 

Dept.:                 16 - The Honorable Glade Roper

Motion:              Petition for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights

Tentative Ruling:  To Deny the Petition for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights

Petitioner seeks approval of an agreement for Payee to transfer 220 monthly structured settlement payments of $500.00 each coming due between November 26, 2028 and February 6, 2047.  The aggregate amount of payments to be transferred is $110,000.00.  Payee is to receive a current payment of $13,750.00 for the transfer.  According to Petitioner, the payments to be transferred have a current net value of $75,910.26.  Petitioner reports the transaction has a loan equivalent interest rate of 11.19%.  The subject payments are life contingent.  Accordingly, Petitioner is purchasing a life insurance policy for a reported cost of $8,250.00.  Payee is not being charged directly for this cost.  No fees are being assessed by Petitioner for the proposed transaction.

Payee reports he has three dependent children aged 3 to 11.  Other than this, there is a dearth of factual information submitted to support the proposed transaction.  Deficiencies include the following:

• The payments to be assigned as stated in the petition and proposed agreement do not match those listed in the declaration signed by payee;
• There is no information provided as to the terms of the underlying structured settlement.  There is no information provided from which the court can determine whether payee is transferring his entire settlement or only a portion;
• No copy of the settlement agreement or of the annuity contract has been submitted;
• There is no statement regarding prior transfers of settlement payment rights;
• Payee provides no reasons for the proposed transfer, no information as to his current age, no information as to his employment status, and no information as to his financial, medical and physical condition, including 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.
• No information is provided for the Court to consider, as required under Insurance Code §10139.5(b)(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.

Based on the foregoing, the Petition, at a minimum, fails to comply with the requirements of Insurance Code 10139.5(c)(6) and section 10139.5(b).  The court finds the proposed transfer jeopardizes Payee’s long term financial security for a minimal short term payment and is not fair or reasonable.  The petition is denied on the merits as not in the best interests of Payee.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

 

 

 


This concludes the civil tentative rulings



Top