Petition for court approval of proposed transfer
Similarly, Respondent argues the appointed accountant had been trying to court Petitioner’s business for several years, but neither Petitioner nor the accountant disclosed that to Respondent and the Arbitrator decided it was not big deal. To support this assertion, Respondent cites to the accountant’s entire report without any pinpoint cite and cites to nothing by the Arbitrator. Respondent goes on to make numerous representations about errors the accountant made and statements both the accountant and Arbitrator made in their respective report and award.
Respondent, however, fails to cite any evidence to show the inaccuracies and other issues. It is not sufficient to Respondent to make conclusory accusations; Respondent must cite the court to evidence to establish the accusations are true. Respondent has not done so and therefore failed to meet its burden on its request to vacate the arbitration award.
Moreover, Respondent fails to disclose or acknowledge many of the points Petitioner has made in the reply, including that Respondent agreed to, shaped, and benefitted from the accounting procedure it now attacks. In short, Respondent’s opposition is bereft of any authority to support or citations to evidence supporting its challenges to the award. Respondent attaches hundreds of pages to its counsel’s declaration, but the minimal citations to those pages is of no assistance. Respondent has failed to show its opposition is anything more than a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and reasoning of the Arbitrator which cannot be reviewed on a petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award.
Accordingly, the petition to confirm the award is GRANTED, and the request to vacate the award included in the opposition is DENIED. Petitioner may submit a proposed judgment, and any requests for costs or attorney fees will need to be made pursuant to an appropriate post-judgment procedure, such as potentially a memorandum of costs or attorney fee motion, because no evidence is submitted at this time to support an award of either fees or costs. Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
6. In Re: Crestpoint Capital, LLC 2026-01559773 Before the court is the continued hearing on the petition of petitioner Crestpoint Capital LLC (Petitioner) for court approval of proposed transfer of certain periodic payments real party in interest and payee Samantha Mena (Payee) is scheduled to receive under a structured settlement. As more fully set forth below, the petition is DENIED at the request of Payee and for Petitioner’s failure to provide the required supplemental information.
In these proceedings, Petitioner seeks court approval for Payee to transfer four periodic payments including one semiannual payment of $10,000 due on January 1, 2027, one lump sum payment of $25,000 due on May 3, 2027, one lump sum payment of $50,000 due on May 3, 2031, and one lump sum payment of $60,000 due on May 3, 2034. These payments total $145,000 and have a discounted present value of $113,946.41. In exchange for transferring the right to receive these monthly payments, Payee would receive a present, lump sum payment of $61,799.25, which represents 54.24 percent of the payments’ present value and equates to an equivalent interest rate of 19.96 percent if Payee were to take a loan.
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?”
The court first heard the petition on June 11, 2026. At that time, Payee appeared and reported she no longer was interested in proceeding with the transaction. There was no appearance by Petitioner. Prior to the hearing, the court posted a tentative ruling pointing out several deficiencies in the petition and the showing in support of it. The tentative was to continue the hearing to allow Petitioner to submit the necessary information. The court ultimately continued the hearing for that purpose and to allow Payee to discuss the transaction with Petitioner.
In connection with the current hearing, Payee has submitted a request for the court to deny the petition. Payee also has submitted a declaration and supporting exhibits showing how she has exercised her right to cancel the transaction under the governing documents. Based on Payee’s expressed desire to cancel the transaction and her demonstrated exercise of her right to do so under the parties’ agreement, the petition is DENIED. Nonetheless, counsel for Petitioner is ordered to appear at the hearing to address why this case was not dismissed or the petition withdrawn in light of Payee’s clearly expressed desire to cancel the transaction. The clerk will be directed to give notice of the court’s order.
7. In Re: CBC Settlement Funding, LLC 2026-01559765 Before the court is the continued hearing on the petition of petitioner CBC Settlement Funding LLC (Petitioner) for court approval of proposed transfer of one lump sum payment payee Brandon Thompson (Payee) is scheduled to receive under a structured settlement. As more fully set forth below, the petition is GRANTED. Under the proposed transfer, Payee would transfer to Petitioner the rights to one lump payment of $375,000 due on July 6, 2046. The payment has a discounted present