In RE: Martinez

Given the file in this matter is sealed, the court’s posted tentative ruling will not go into any further detail as to the basis for the foregoing, but is happy to discuss the matter further petitioner at the hearing.

2. In RE: Martinez Before the court is the hearing on the order to show cause as to why the court should not reconsider its February 26,

2026 ruling granting the first amended verified petition for approval for transfer of structured settlement payment rights by and between payee and real party in interest Luis Martinez (Payee) and petitioner CBC Settlement Fundings, LLC (Petitioner).

The court set this order to show cause because, in connection with Petitioner submitting a proposed order granting the first amended petition, it came to light that Petitioner served the incorrect annuity owner and incorrect annuity issuer.

The court has reviewed the declaration of counsel (ROA 43) Petitioner submitted in response to the order to show cause as well as the notice of hearing. The court continues to have concerns regarding this matter and is inclined to vacate its prior ruling without prejudice to Petitioner filing and serving another amended petition that provides current information and is properly served on all necessary parties.

First, since discovering the error, Petitioner represents it has served all documents on the proper annuity owner and issuer—i.e., Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc. and Pacific Life & Annuity Company. Petitioner, however, has not served any of the documents on Payee and Payee has not been given notice of today’s hearing.

Second, although Petitioner represents the proper annuity owner and issuer have no objection, that representation is hearsay.

Finally, nearly a year has elapsed since Payee signed the contract, and it is not clear interest rates and the related calculations have not changed during that period due to changes in the market. Similarly, nothing is presented to show Payee’s circumstances have not changed. The first amended petition and the court’s decision to grant it was based in part on Payee’s dire need to bring his rent current. Given several months have elapsed since then, it is not clear the name need and justification exist.

3. VFS, LLC vs. Before the court is the order to show cause why an order AM Bakersfield, for sale of dwelling should not issue relating to property LLC located at 3111 Gardenia Lane, Yorba Linda, California 92886 and owned by judgment debtor Arpit Patel (Debtor)