Damond Lee v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Because Mejia is entering into this transfer agreement more than five years from the date of settlement since the minor's compromise petition was approved by the court in January 24, 2012, it is not necessary for Petitioner to serve Mejia's settlement attorney with notice pursuant to Insurance Code section 10139.5, subdivision (f)(2)(L). (FAP, Ex. D.)

The court further finds that Petitioner has provided Mejia with a disclosure form that complies with Section 10136, and that the transfer agreement complies with Sections 10136 and 10138. (Ins. Code, Sec.Sec. 10139.5, subd. (a)(3), 10136, 10138; FAP Ex. A, Transfer Agreement, Ex. B, California Disclosure Statement.)

Fourth, the court finds that the transfer agreement does not contravene any applicable statute or the order of any court or other government authority. (Ins. Code, Sec. 10139.5, subd. (a)(4); FAP. Ex. A, Transfer Agreement.)

Fifth, the court finds that Mejia understands the terms of the transfer agreement, including the terms set forth in the disclosure statement required by Section 10136. (Ins. Code, Sec. 10139.5, subd. (a)(5); Mejia Decl., P. 13.)

Sixth, the court finds that Mejia understands and does not wish to exercise his right to cancel the transfer agreement. (Ins. Code, Sec. 10139.5, subd. (a)(6); Mejia Decl., P. 13.)

Based on the findings set forth above, and after considering the circumstances set forth in Insurance Code section 10139.5, subdivisions (b)(1)-(b)(15) and Mejia's declaration, the court determines that the proposed transfer of the structured settlement payment rights should be approved and that the transfer is fair, reasonable, and in the payee's best interest. The court therefore grants Petitioner's First Amended Petition.

ORDER

The court grants petitioner Boca Reserve Group, LLC's amended petition for approval for transfer of payment rights. The court orders that the transfer of structured settlement payment rights set forth in the "Transfer Agreement," attached as Exhibit A to petitioner Boca Reserve Group, LLC's First Amended Petition filed in this action on August 14, 2026, is approved. This order shall constitute a final "Qualified Order" pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 5891.¿

The court orders petitioner Boca Reserve Group, LLC to give notice of this ruling to all interested parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 9, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court

County of Los Angeles - Central District Department 513 damond lee; Plaintiff, vs. city of los angeles, et al.; Defendants. | Case No.: |

| | | Hearing Date: | September 9, 2026 | | | Time: | 8:30 a.m. | | | [tentative] Order RE: order to show cause why the court should not grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings | Order t o Show Cause Why the Court Should on Its Own Motion Should Not Grant a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on in Favor of Defendants on the Ground the Complaint Does Not State Facts Sufficient to Constitute a Cause of Action Against Defendants Plaintiff

Damond Lee ("Plaintiff") filed the operative Complaint in this action on February 25, 2026, alleging against defendants City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Housing Department, Leonard Ross, Brandon Vega, and Manuel Vargas ("Defendants") causes of action for negligence, failure to perform mandatory duty (Gov. Code, Sec. 815.6), and retaliation/abuse of authority.

On August 11, 2026, the court issued a minute order setting for hearing an Order to Show Cause why the court on its own motion should not grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendants. (August 11, 2026 minute order, p. 1.)

The clerk served Plaintiff with a copy of the court's August 11, 2026 minute order. (August 11, 2026 Certificate of Mailing, p. 1.) Plaintiff did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause.

Upon review of the Complaint filed on February 25, 2026, the court finds that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute the stated causes of action for negligence, failure to perform mandatory duty ((Gov Code, Sec. 815.6), and retaliation/abuse of authority against Defendants, including because Plaintiff has not alleged (1) any facts setting forth the alleged wrongful acts or omissions of Defendant in support of each cause of action, and (2) each element of each asserted cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(ii).)

The court therefore grants its own motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's Complaint. (Ibid.)

The court grants its own motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend because Plaintiff did not meet their burden to articulate how they can amend the Complaint to render it sufficient against Defendants, including because Plaintiff did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause setting forth the facts that can be alleged and what causes of action those facts can support. (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290 [burden is on the plaintiff to articulate how they could amend their pleading to render it sufficient].)

ORDER

The court grants its own motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff Damond Lee's Complaint, filed in this action on February 25, 2026, without leave to amend. The court orders that this action is dismissed.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 581, subd. (m).)¿

The court directs the clerk to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 9, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge