Petition for approval of the transfer of certain structured settlement payment rights
animus. (Le Mere v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 237, 243.) Plaintiff notes the short period of time between his request for an accommodation and being screened out for a promotion support his claim. (Plaintiff’s response to CalFire’s UMF No. 86.) This is a triable issue of material fact. Based upon the foregoing, CalFire’s motion as to this cause of action is DENIED. E. Sixth Cause of Action – Failure to Prevent Discrimination Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action alleges CalFire failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent disability discrimination against him.
As Plaintiff’s claim for disability discrimination remains, the motion on this cause of action must also be denied. II. Conclusion and Order CalFire’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication is DENIED. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.
6. 26CV01827, Stone Street Originations, LLC v. R.-M.
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. JANE GASKELL)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
17. PLEASE USE DEPT. 17’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION.
This matter is on calendar for the petition of Stone Street Originations, LLC (“Petitioner”) for approval of the transfer of certain structured settlement payment rights.
1. Petitions The original petition filed on March 9, 2026 (“Petition”) refers to the party in interest as “A.R.-M.” (Petition, ¶2.) The majority of the Petition refers to “A.R.-M.” as “Payee” or “Transferor.” The Petition states that in 1993, Payee became entitled to certain structured settlement payments in connection with a personal injury claim. (Petition, ¶3.) The periodic payments are not listed and only stated as being “XXXX.” (Petition, ¶4.) The proposed Purchase Agreement whereby Petitioner seeks to purchase the payment rights is attached as Exhibit A to the Petition.
The name of the real party in interest and the amount Petitioner seeks to purchase from the real party in interest is redacted. On May 28, 2026, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition (“FAP”). In the body of the FAP, the real party in interest is identified as Arnulfo Rosas-Montes (“Payee”) and the terms of the proposed transfer are set forth. (FAP, ¶¶2-4.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
2. Procedural Issues “Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 367.) “In the complaint, the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 422.40.) One who is not named is not a proper party to an action. (Fuss v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 643, 646.) The failure to identify Mr. Rosas-Montes as a party in the title of this action is problematic for several reasons. One important issue is the right of public access to court proceedings. Among the guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is that court proceedings are open and public. (Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105, 110.) Public access to court proceedings is essential to a 19
functioning democracy. It promotes trust in the integrity of the court system, and it exposes abuses of judicial power to public scrutiny. (Id., at pp. 110-111.) The right to access court proceedings necessarily includes the right to know the identity of the parties. (Id., at p. 111.) Without naming Mr. Rosas-Montes, his identity is not discoverable through a search of court records, obscuring his association with the requested transfer. More fundamental is that this court obtains jurisdiction to enter an order against a person only if the person is named as a party. (Tracy Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1297.) Without Mr. Rosas-Montes being a named party in the title of this action, this court is without jurisdiction to make any determinations about his rights under the FAP.
3. Conclusion and Order Based upon the procedural defects, the motion is DENIED. As no opposition has been filed, this court’s minutes shall constitute the order of this court.
20