In Re: Verdell

before the designated hearing time. Once the online check-in is completed, participants will be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session. Participants will initially be directed to a virtual waiting room pending the start of their specific video hearing. Check-in instructions and instructional video are available at. The Court’s “Appearance Procedures and Information--Civil Unlimited and Complex” and “Guidelines for Remote Appearances” also are available at. Those procedures and guidelines will be strictly enforced.

Public Access: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings. Members of the media or public may obtain access to law and motion hearings in this department by either coming to the department at the designated hearing time or contacting the courtroom clerk at (657) 622-5223 to obtain login information. For remote appearances by the media or public, please contact the courtroom clerk 24 hours in advance so as not to interrupt the hearings.

NO FILMING, BROADCASTING, PHOTOGRAPHY, OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING IS PERMITTED OF THE VIDEO SESSION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 1.150 AND ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULE 180.

# Case Name Case Number Tentative 1. DeJesse vs. MRV Marketing, LLC 2024-01426311 CONTINUED TO JANUARY 25, 2027, as stated in the August 17, 2026 Minute Order.

2. In Re: Verdell 2026-01577324 Before the court is the unopposed motion of petitioner DRB Capital, LLC (Petitioner) seeking an order approving the transfer of structured settlement payment rights by and between payee and real party in interest Jahara Verdell (Payee) and Petitioner pursuant to California Insurance Code section 10134 et seq. Specifically, the parties seek court approval of the proposal for Payee to transfer the right to receive a single lump sum payment of $305,250 on August 24,2027, in exchange for a present lump sum payment of $274,010.71.

The future payment of $305,250.00 has a discounted present value of $287,113.05, which means Payee will receive 95.44 percent of that value and this proposed transaction has an equivalent interest rate of 8.98 percent. The Court, having reviewed and considered the petition, together with all other such relevant matters, finds there is good cause to approve the transfer of structured settlement payment rights by and between Payee and Petitioner. The court makes the following findings as required by Insurance

Code sections 10137 and 10139.5(a): (1) the transfer is fair and reasonable and in the best interest of Payee, taking into account the welfare and support of his dependents; (2) Payee has been advised in writing by Petitioner to seek independent professional advice regarding the transfer and has either received that advice or knowingly waived, in writing, the opportunity to receive the advice; (3) Petitioner has complied with the notification requirements pursuant to Insurance Code section 10139.5(f)(2), Petitioner has provided Payee with a disclosure form that complies with Insurance Code section 10136, and the transfer agreement complies with Insurance Code sections 10136 and 10138; (4) the transfer does not contravene any applicable statute or the order of any court or other government authority and otherwise complies with the requirements of Insurance Code section 10134, et seq.; (5) Payee understands the terms of the transfer agreement, including the terms set forth in the disclosure statement required by Insurance Code section 10136; and (6) Payee understands and does not wish to exercise his right to cancel the transfer agreement.

Based on the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to submit a proposed order approving the transfer consistent with the requirements of Insurance Code section 10134 et seq. Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

3. Spruce Grove, Inc. vs. The Southern California Injury Law Group 2026-01568223 Before the court is a petition to confirm contractual arbitration award filed by petitioner Spruce Grove, Inc. (Petitioner) against respondents The Southern California Injury Law Group, Christopher K. Monelt, Mia Mogavero, and Alazar Berhe (collectively, Respondents). For the reasons set forth below, the petition is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As an initial matter, the court declines to consider Respondents’ very untimely opposition.

A response to a petition to confirm an arbitration award shall be served and filed within 10 days after service of the petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.) Here, Respondents were served with the petition on June 5, June 12, and June 18, 2026. (ROA 10, 12, 14, 16.) A response to the petition therefore was due no later than June 28, 2026. Respondents’ opposition filed on August 12, 2026, thus was untimely. No explanation is provided for the untimely filing. Additionally, no proof of service was filed showing Petitioner was served with a copy of the opposition.

The court therefore declines to consider the opposition papers. (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.1300(d).)