Renner vs. Leuck

of transfer of structured settlement payment rights (ROA 2, 13); (2) the declarations of Payee in support of these petitions (ROA 2, Ex. 3 and ROA 21); (3) the notice of filing of underlying structured settlement documents; and (4) the various notices of hearing (ROA 6, 12, 19).

This petition presents a close call because, although Petitioner and Payee have submitted supplemental information following the prior order by the court, much of that information is vague and conclusory and does not necessarily provide all the information the court sought. The court, however, in reviewing the prior cases involving Payee has been able to locate additional information. The court will expect more specific and responsive evidence in the future.

Based on those documents and exhibits, 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 her dependents (none); (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 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 her 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., and to give notice of this ruling.

3. Renner vs. Before the court is the amended petition of petitioner Leuck Robert K. Renner (Petitioner) to confirm contractual arbitration award. As more fully set forth below, the

petition is CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23, for Petitioner to file a proof of service showing proper service of

the amended petition and hearing date on respondent Peter Leuck (Respondent).

The court previously continued the hearing on this matter and ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition with specific information and to serve the amended petition and notice of hearing on Respondent. Although Petitioner did file the amended petition, the substitute service on Respondent was not proper.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b), a respondent may be substitute served by leave a copy of the pleadings at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of their office, place of business, or usual mailing address. Here, the process server identified Respondent’s usual place of business at 542 Hamilton Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626, and last known address at 1890 Rhodes Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626. (ROA 28, Garcia Decl. ¶ 2.)

Instead of substitute serving the pleadings at either of those addresses, the server left them with an individual at 1877 Rhodes Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626, which is apparently a rental property which Respondent owns, and which was the subject of the underlying representation. (ROA 28, Garcia Decl. ¶4.)

As the 1877 Rhodes Drive has not been shown to be a qualifying location under section 415.20, nor that the individual that received the pleadings was a qualifying individual under subsection (b), service is not proper.

Although this may seem like a technicality, it is important to confirm proper service at this stage. If service is not proper, any judgment that is ultimately entered may later be challenged for lack of jurisdiction, and if that challenge is successful the judgment must be set aside and the entire process started over.

Based on the foregoing, the hearing is CONTINUED as set forth above. Petitioner is ordered to timely serve the amended petitioner and notice of hearing on Respondent.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling and the continued hearing date.

4. Pinner vs. Before the court is the petition to confirm contractual Griffin arbitration award filed by petitioners John R. Pinner and Tara A. Pinner (collectively, Petitioners) against respondents Dirk T. Griffin and Pinner Construction