Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2019 02:21 PM INDEX NO. 157434/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2019
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF NEW YORK
In the Matter of the Petition of
PEACHTREE SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC,
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
Petitioner, OF PETITION
and IndexNo.
JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK,
JOHN HANCOCK ASSIGNMENT COMPANY,
AND NATALIE TEJADA
As Interested Persons pursuant to GOL § 5-1701(f).
..
STATE OF NEW YORK :
:SS.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK :
Natalie Tejada, under penalties of perjury, being duly sworn, deposes and
says:
1. I am a resident of the State of New York, County of New York, and I
reside at 484 Covent Ave, Apt 33, New York NY 10031.
2. I submit this affidavit in support of this petition, seeking approval of
the transfer of certain structured settlement payments due to me under a
structured settlement agreement.
3. I am the beneficiary of an annuity as the result of a structured
settlement.
4. My claim against the Defendants was resolved through a
1 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2019 02:21 PM INDEX NO. 157434/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2019
settlement agreement, which provided for a series of cash payments that would
be paid to me, over time, under a structured settlement. It ismy understañdiñg
that John Hancock Assignment Company purchased an annuity from John
Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York, who is responsible to make the
annuity payments to me.
5. The beñaficiary of my structured settlement payment rights is Ines
Slorian.
6. I seek to sell, assign and transfer to Petitioner Peachtree
Settlement Funding, LLC certain payments remaining under the structured
settlement agreement, in exchange for a lump sum payment, pursuant to the
terms of a transfer agreement I made with Petitioner Peachtree Settlement
Funding, LLC.
7. Prior to the receiving the Purchase Agreement, Petitioner
Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC provided me with a disclosure statemeñt,
which I read and understood as evidenced by my signature at the end thereof.
"A."
See copy of disclosure statement annexed hereto as Exhibit
8. Further, I have been advised by Petitioner to seek indepeñdent
professional advice regarding the transfer. See Exhibit "B".
9. Itis a condition of the transfer agreement that the transfer be
approved by court order.
10. I am 25 years old, single, and have no minor children. I am
currently unemployed.
2 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2019 02:21 PM INDEX NO. 157434/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2019
11. I plan to use the cash received from the Petitioner Peachtree
Settlement Funding, LLC. as follows:
a. I will be using the proceeds ($38,000) of this transaction to
purchase a home in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The house is currently òn
the market for around $35,000 and an estimated $3,000 in closing costs. I
am working with a realtor to make an offer on this property. Currently, I am
living with my mother in New York City and will not be able to keep living
there in the immediate future.
I am only selling less than 6.4% of the income I am due to
receive from my annuity to better myself and my family. This transaction
does not affect any of my monthly income and stillallows me money to
look fonvard to in 2024 and 2029.
I do not have any other assets or credit resources to finance these needs.
12. I have received the New York Disclosure Statement at least 10
days prior to executing the transfer agreement.
13. For the reasons stated herein, I ask that the Court approve the
transfer, as itis in my best interest. .
3 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2019 02:21 PM INDEX NO. 157434/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2019
. . W.HEREFORE, I respectfully request that this Court enter an Order
pfoving th. transfer. ..
NATAUE TEJADA
Sworn to before me this
3 day of 7vdu 20 19 .
WILLIE F. JONES Ill
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK
No. 01J06329709
wouned in xings counn
Notary TPublic
My Commission ExpiresAugust 31, 2019
4 of 4
Related Content
in New York County
Case
Jp Morgan Chase Bank. N.A v. Vasile Ifrim
Jul 09, 2024 |
Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |
Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |
156212/2024
Case
Lvnv Funding Llc v. Ana Arroyo
Jul 11, 2024 |
Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |
Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |
156320/2024
Ruling
Sierra Central Credit Union vs. Bowen
Jul 14, 2024 |
23CVG-00603
SIERRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION VS. BOWEN
Case Number: 23CVG-00603
This matter is on calendar for confirmation of Judgment. The Court’s June 5, 2024 Ruling after
trial ordered Defendant to submit a proposed judgment for the Court’s signature. No proposed
judgment has been filed. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s
calendar.
Ruling
SOCAL LIEN SOLUTIONS LLC VS GOODMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS SPE LLC
Jul 11, 2024 |
24NWCV00662
Case Number:
24NWCV00662
Hearing Date:
July 11, 2024
Dept:
C
SOCAL LIEN SOLUTIONS LLC v. GOODMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS SPE LLC
CASE NO.:
24NWCV00662
HEARING:
07/11/24
#6
Defendant GOODMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS SPE LLCs
Demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint is
CONTINUED
to
Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C
.
Moving Party to give notice.
Defendant GOODMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS SPE LLC generally demurs to each cause of action contained in Plaintiffs Complaint.
On June 26, 2024, before Plaintiffs Opposition to this Demurrer was due, Plaintiff filed and served a Notice of Errata intended to augment inadvertent errors in its complaint at Exhibit D. (Ntc. of Errata, 06/26/24.) It appears that this new Exhibit D intends to amend the initial pleading.
A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. (emphasis added.) (CCP §472.)
Although Plaintiff did not file, serve, or move for leave to file an amended pleading,
it is well-settled that California recognizes a general rule of&liberal allowance of amendments& (
Nestle v. City of Santa Monica
(1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)
In the interests of judicial efficiency and in light of the liberal policy concerning amendments, the Court utilizes its discretion to grant Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint incorporating the new exhibit attached as Exhibit D to Plaintiffs Notice of Errata.
Plaintiff is
ORDERED
to file and serve a First Amended Complaint within 5 days from the date of the Courts issuance of this Order. If the FAC is timely filed and served, the subject Demurrer will be taken off-calendar as MOOT on the continued hearing date. If the FAC is not timely filed and served, the Court will issue a ruling on this subject Demurrer, on the merits.
Ruling
MARTHE SCHREIBER VS. JOSEPH P BRENT AND FIOL, DAVID LLP
Jul 11, 2024 |
CGC23604588
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Thursday, July 11, 2024, Line 13. PLAINTIFF MARTHE SCHREIBER's Motion To Set Aside The Judgment. Ordered off calendar as untimely filed. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATIONAL FINANCING AUTHORITY VS ALEXANDER
Jul 12, 2024 |
BC682984
Case Number:
BC682984
Hearing Date:
July 12, 2024
Dept:
71
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
DEPARTMENT 71
TENTATIVE RULING
MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATIONAL FINANCING AUTHORITY
,
vs.
ALEXANDER
.
Case No.:
BC682984
Hearing Date:
July 12, 2024
Plaintiff Massachusetts Educational Financing Authoritys
unopposed
motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is granted.
Plaintiff is to submit a judgment to this Court within 10 days of this ruling.
Plaintiff Massachusetts Education Financing Authority (MEFA) (Plaintiff) moves
unopposed
for an order to enter judgment because Defendant Alexander L Ross (Ross) (Defendant) defaulted on the terms and conditions of the parties settlement stipulation.
(Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §664.6.)
Background
On November 09, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court for damages in the amount of $25,149.19 to recover the unpaid balance on a credit card account.
(Decl. of Rohan ¶2.)
On March 22, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant executed a settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement), with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement.
(Decl. of Rohan ¶3, Exh. A.)
Pursuant to ¶10 of the agreement, if Defendant defaulted under the Settlement Agreement, then Plaintiff could obtain a judgment for the outstanding balance, pre-judgment interest and costs through declaration and order.
(
See
Decl. of Rohan ¶¶3-4, Exh. A at ¶10.)
On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.
As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed by Defendant.
Motion to Enforce Settlement
Legal Standard
C.C.P. §664.6 provides, as follows: If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.
(C.C.P. §664.6(a).)
Disputes regarding the terms of the settlement (or other disputed facts) may be adjudicated on a C.C.P. §664.6 motion on the basis of declarations or other evidence.
(
Malouf Brothers v. Dixon
(1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 280, 284;
Machado v. Myers
(2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 795-796 [stating court may resolve reasonable disputes over terms of settlement agreement but may not modify terms from what was agreed to by parties].)
Discussion
Plaintiff submitted evidence that Plaintiff and Defendant executed a Settlement Agreement that is signed by the parties and contains a provision authorizing this Court to retain jurisdiction under C.C.P. §664.6.
(Decl. of
Rohan ¶2
, Exh. A.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff submitted evidence of the existence of a valid settlement agreement and is therefore entitled to an order enforcing the settlement.
Plaintiffs counsel declares Defendant last made a payment on September 9, 2014.
(Decl. of Rohan ¶4.)
Plaintiffs counsel declares that on March 16, 2023, he last sent a cure letter to Defendant, stating that Defendant had ten days to cure the defect.
(Decl. of Rohan ¶6.)
Plaintiffs counsel declares Defendant did not cure the defect and Defendant has not made any other payments pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
(Decl. of Rohan ¶¶6-7.)
Plaintiffs counsel declares the principal outstanding balance on Defendants account is $10,552.09.
(Decl. of Rohan ¶8.)
Plaintiff requests a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion
to enforce the Settlement Agreement and enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs is granted.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs
unopposed
motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs is granted.
Plaintiff is to submit a judgment to the Court within 10 days of this ruling.
Moving Party to give notice.
Dated:
July _____, 2024
Hon. Daniel M. Crowley
Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
LVNV Funding, LLC vs Esther Canal An Individual
Jul 10, 2024 |
23CV-01524
23CV-01524 LVNV Funding, LLC v. Esther Canal
Court Trial
Appearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the
court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance.
Ruling
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro
Jul 14, 2024 |
23CVG-00362
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTRO
Case Number: 23CVG-00362
Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. moves
for terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the
amount of $1,572.75 for each motion.
Procedural Defect: As a procedural matter, this motion was served both via mail and email on May 9, 2024, and
set for a hearing date of June 7, 2024. CCP § 1005(b) requires all moving papers be served 16 court days before
the hearing. This notice period is extended by five calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Id. For service
by email, the notice period is extended by two court days. CCP § 1010.6(a)(3). This timeframe is calculated by
counting backwards from the hearing date but excluding the hearing date. CCP § 12c.
Starting with the June 7, 2024, hearing date and counting backwards 16 court days (excluding the Court holiday
of May 27, 2024) then five calendar days for out of state mailing this matter should have been served by mail no
later than, May 4, 2024. For email the last day to serve the motion was April 24, 2024. The motion was served
on May 7, 2024, and was untimely under either calculation. Based on insufficient statutory notice, the motion is
denied.
Merits of Motion: Even if the motion had been timely noticed, terminating sanctions are not warranted.
Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract
Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generally be
imposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id. No justification
has been provided as to why terminating sanctions are appropriate in this context instead of lesser evidentiary or
issue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions would be premature.
The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the
denial.
Review Hearing: This matter is also on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The Court designates this
matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than October 15, 2024. An appearance is
necessary on today’s calendar to discuss available trial dates.
Ruling
DIMERCO EXPRESS USA CORP. VS CONCORD DISPLAYS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Jul 12, 2024 |
22AHCV00898
Case Number:
22AHCV00898
Hearing Date:
July 12, 2024
Dept:
3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT
DIMERCO EXPRESS USA CORP.
,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
CONCORD DISPLAYS, LLC, et al.
,
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.:
22AHCV00898
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Dept. 3
8:30 a.m.
July 12
, 2024
)
Plaintiff Dimerco Express USA Corp. (Plaintiff) requests a default judgment against defendant Concord Displays, LLC (Defendant) in the amount of $24,630.97. On May 23, 2042, Plaintiff filed a declaration of counsel attaching a settlement agreement which provides for the entry of a stipulated judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. In light of this agreement, Plaintiffs attempt to secure a default judgment is procedurally incorrect. Plaintiff should be moving for entry of a judgment pursuant to stipulation and submit a proposed judgment that reflects its stipulated nature. Accordingly, the hearing on the default prove-up is vacated and the Court sets an OSC re: Dismissal for _____________ in order to allow Plaintiff time to file a noticed motion.
Dated this
12th
day of
July
, 2024
William A. Crowfoot
Judge of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Ruling
2024CUEN023875 BENEFITS SYSTEMS INC vs GOLD COAST SECURITIES INC.
Jul 09, 2024 |
Jeffrey G. Bennett
|
Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment or Alternatively, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment |
2024CUEN023875
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF VENTURA
Tentative Ruling
2024CUEN023875: BENEFITS SYSTEMS INC vs GOLD COAST SECURITIES INC.
07/09/2024 in Department 21
Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment or Alternatively, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment
The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please
arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is
called.
The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by
CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make
arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for
approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No
exceptions will be made.
With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to
submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at
805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at:
Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of
sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party
appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not
communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing,
the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative.
Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the
prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a),
(b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with
the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized.
Tentative Ruling
The Court DENIES the request to vacate the Judgment because GCSI’s only argument in support
of its request to vacate the Judgment is based on §473.5, and because §473.5 does not apply to a
judgment entered on a sister-state judgment such as the Judgment entered by this Court on April
22, 2024.
The Court also DENIES GCSI’s request for a stay of enforcement of the Judgment.
Analysis
Defendant’s Request for an Order Vacating the Judgment
GCSI’s sole stated ground for vacating the Judgment is that GCSI lacked actual notice of the
Texas action in time to defend, and therefore it entitled to relief from the Judgment pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure §473.5.
2024CUEN023875: BENEFITS SYSTEMS INC vs GOLD COAST SECURITIES INC.
However, it is well-established that the Court cannot grant relief from the Judgment pursuant to
§473.5, because §473.5 is not applicable to a judgment entered on a sister-state judgment:
“Judgment debtors contend the trial court erred in refusing to vacate the sister state
judgment pursuant to section 473.5. We disagree because section 473.5 is inapplicable to
a sister state judgment entered under the SSFMJA.1
‘When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend
the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the
action, he or she may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default
judgment and for leave to defend the action. The notice of motion shall be served and
filed within a reasonable time, but in no event exceeding the earlier of: (i) two years after
entry of a default judgment against him or her; or (ii) 180 days after service on him or her
of a written notice that the default or default judgment has been entered.’ (§ 473.5, subd.
(a).)
“Judgment debtors contend their motion to vacate judgment was timely under section
473.5, subdivision (a) because it was made within 180 days after entry of the sister state
judgment. They contend the court should have vacated the sister state judgment under
section 473.5, subdivision (a) because their failure to offer a defense in the Indiana action
arose from the absence of service of process and their lack of actual notice. The fatal
fallacy of their position lies in their failure to recognize that section 473.5 is not
applicable to a judgment entered pursuant to the SSFMJA.
“In Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 203 [106 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 854] the court explained, ‘Section 473.5 is addressed to motions to set aside a
default or default judgment … . Section 473.5 is a procedural remedy by which a default
or default judgment may be set aside …; and is inapplicable to a sister state judgment
entered pursuant to the SSFMJA because it is not a default or default judgment.”
(Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 844.)
Defendant’s Request for a Stay of Enforcement of the Judgment
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1710.50(a) provides that:
“(a) The court shall grant a stay of enforcement where:
(1) An appeal from the sister state judgment is pending or may be taken in the state which
originally rendered the judgment. Under this paragraph, enforcement shall be stayed until
the proceedings on appeal have been concluded or the time for appeal has expired…[¶¶]
(5) Any other circumstance exists where the interests of justice require a stay of
enforcement.”
2024CUEN023875: BENEFITS SYSTEMS INC vs GOLD COAST SECURITIES INC.
With respect to a stay of enforcement under §1710.50(a)(1), GCSI does not submit any evidence
that an appeal is pending from the Texas judgment. Instead, GCSI’s Chief Executive Officer
Tae Ho merely states in his declaration that he intends to file a “Bill for Review.” (See Ho
Decl., ¶4.) However, GCSI fails to cite to any authority or submit any evidence indicating that
it is still able to file a timely appeal of the Texas judgment. And under Texas law, a Bill for
Review does not appear to constitute an appeal at all, but rather a separate equitable proceeding
to challenge a judgment that may no longer be appealed. (See In re Tex. Real Estate Comm'n
(Tex.Ct.App. 2018) 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 672, at *6-7.) Section 1710.50(a)(1) only provides
for a stay of enforcement for appeals. Accordingly, GCSI fails to establish it is entitled to a stay
of enforcement under §1710.50(a)(1).
With respect to §1710.50(a)(5), GCSI contends that it would be in the “interests of justice” to
stay enforcement of the Judgment “due to the lack of notice resulting in…the denial of due
process by the default judgment….” GCSI’s argument regarding a denial of due process lacks
merit, as
“…[D]ue process of law does not require actual notice, only a method reasonably certain
to accomplish that end. [Citation.] ‘Mullane makes it clear that due process of law
does not require actual notice, but only a method reasonably certain to accomplish that
end. [Citations.] “If the form of substituted service is reasonably calculated to give an
interested party actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard, the
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice implicit in due process are
satisfied.”’ [Citation.]
(Rasooly v. City of Oakley (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 348, 357.)
Here, there appear to have been reasonable attempts by the Texas Secretary of State to serve
GCSI with a Citation , which is apparently the Texas equivalent of a summons, and the
complaint in the Texas action. (See Decl. of Adraian Ciechanowicz, ¶¶4-8.) GCSI fails to
make any argument – much less submit any evidence – that these efforts were constitutionally
deficient. Accordingly, GCSI fails to show that it has been denied due process.
It also is unclear what staying enforcement of the Judgment for an indefinite period would
achieve, as GCSI fails to submit any evidence indicating that it may still timely appeal the Texas
judgment and – in the absence of such evidence – fails to submit any evidence that it will be able
to overturn the Texas judgment. In the absence of such evidence, a stay of enforcement of the
Judgment would not be in the interests of justice.
Document
Lvnv Funding Llc v. Ana Arroyo
Jul 11, 2024 |
Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |
Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff |
156320/2024
Document
Jp Morgan Chase Bank. N.A v. Vasile Ifrim
Jul 09, 2024 |
Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |
Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Original Creditor Plaintiff |
156212/2024
Document
In The Matter Of The Application Of; Irving Haase & Co., Inc., Lienor, For An Order Pursuant To Lien Law Section 17 Of The Lien Law Continuing A Certain Notice Under Mechanics' Lien Law Against Premises Known As 24 Leonard Street, New York, New York, Block 179, Lots 1601, 1602, 1603, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1607, 1608. v. None
Jul 08, 2024 |
Special Proceedings - Other (Mechanic's Lien) |
Special Proceedings - Other (Mechanic's Lien) |
156176/2024
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2019 02:21 PM INDEX NO. 157434/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2019 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Petition of PEACHTREE SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT Petitioner, OF PETITION and IndexNo. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, JOHN HANCOCK ASSIGNMENT COMPANY, AND NATALIE TEJADA As Interested Persons pursuant to GOL § 5-1701(f). .. STATE OF NEW YORK : :SS.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK : Natalie Tejada, under penalties of perjury, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a resident of the State of New York, County of New York, and I reside at 484 Covent Ave, Apt 33, New York NY 10031. 2. I submit this affidavit in support of this petition, seeking approval of the transfer of certain structured settlement payments due to me under a structured settlement agreement. 3. I am the beneficiary of an annuity as the result of a structured settlement. 4. My claim against the Defendants was resolved through a 1 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2019 02:21 PM INDEX NO. 157434/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2019 settlement agreement, which provided for a series of cash payments that would be paid to me, over time, under a structured settlement. It ismy understañdiñg that John Hancock Assignment Company purchased an annuity from John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York, who is responsible to make the annuity payments to me. 5. The beñaficiary of my structured settlement payment rights is Ines Slorian. 6. I seek to sell, assign and transfer to Petitioner Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC certain payments remaining under the structured settlement agreement, in exchange for a lump sum payment, pursuant to the terms of a transfer agreement I made with Petitioner Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC. 7. Prior to the receiving the Purchase Agreement, Petitioner Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC provided me with a disclosure statemeñt, which I read and understood as evidenced by my signature at the end thereof. "A." See copy of disclosure statement annexed hereto as Exhibit 8. Further, I have been advised by Petitioner to seek indepeñdent professional advice regarding the transfer. See Exhibit "B". 9. Itis a condition of the transfer agreement that the transfer be approved by court order. 10. I am 25 years old, single, and have no minor children. I am currently unemployed. 2 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2019 02:21 PM INDEX NO. 157434/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2019 11. I plan to use the cash received from the Petitioner Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC. as follows: a. I will be using the proceeds ($38,000) of this transaction to purchase a home in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The house is currently òn the market for around $35,000 and an estimated $3,000 in closing costs. I am working with a realtor to make an offer on this property. Currently, I am living with my mother in New York City and will not be able to keep living there in the immediate future. I am only selling less than 6.4% of the income I am due to receive from my annuity to better myself and my family. This transaction does not affect any of my monthly income and stillallows me money to look fonvard to in 2024 and 2029. I do not have any other assets or credit resources to finance these needs. 12. I have received the New York Disclosure Statement at least 10 days prior to executing the transfer agreement. 13. For the reasons stated herein, I ask that the Court approve the transfer, as itis in my best interest. . 3 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2019 02:21 PM INDEX NO. 157434/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2019 . . W.HEREFORE, I respectfully request that this Court enter an Order pfoving th. transfer. .. NATAUE TEJADA Sworn to before me this 3 day of 7vdu 20 19 . WILLIE F. JONES Ill NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. 01J06329709 wouned in xings counn Notary TPublic My Commission ExpiresAugust 31, 2019 4 of 4