Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00878/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00878-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMANADA J., SOFIA CAMPOSRIEDEL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BUTTE COUNTY, BUTTE COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT 

AND SOCIAL SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 02-CV-00878-TLN-AC

ORDER AUTHORIZING PETITIONER 

TO SEEK A TRANSFER OF THE 

STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PAYMENT 

RIGHTS BY AND BETWEEN AMANDA J. 

AND J.G. WENTWORTH 

ORIGINATIONS, LLC, PURSUANT TO 

CALIFORNIA INSURANCE CODE § 10134

ET SEQ. BEFORE THE PLACER 

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Before the Court is Petitioner J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC’s (“Petitioner”) Motion 

for an order authorizing Petitioner to seek a transfer of the structured settlement payment rights 

by and between Plaintiff Amanda J. (“Plaintiff”) and Petitioner before the Placer County Superior 

Court. (ECF No. 92.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s 

motion and authorizes Petitioner to proceed before the Placer County Superior Court.

On July 22, 2005, the Honorable David F. Levi of this Court approved the petition of 

Sophia Campos-Riedel, court appointed Guardian Ad Litem for minor Plaintiffs Amanda J. and 

Samantha W., for Approval of Minor’s Compromise, pursuant to a settlement reached between 

the minor Plaintiffs and Defendant Butte County. (ECF No. 78.) The approved Minor’s 

Compromise in relevant part, stated as follows:

Case 2:02-cv-00878-TLN-AC Document 97 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2. Payable to Amanda J[.] (also “Payee”):

A. $2,000.00 payable annually for four (4) years certain only, 

beginning 10/02/2014. Last payment is due 10/02/2017.

B. Lump sum payment of $71,960.00 payable on 10/02/2021.

The precise future periodic payment amounts may vary slightly 

when the future periodic payments are ultimately funded, due to 

interest rate fluctuation and the time sensitivity of the investment.

It is understood that Payor will make a Non-Qualified Assignment 

to NABCO Assignments, Ltd. (“Assignee”) of these future periodic 

payment obligations, with a present value of $54,599.95 ($15,000 

allocated to Samantha, and $39,599.95 allocated to Amanda). The 

Assignee shall fund the obligation for the periodic payments by the 

purchase of an annuity contract from Allstate Life Insurance 

Company. The Assignee shall be substituted as obligor of such 

payments for Payor, which shall be released from any further 

obligation to make said future periodic payments. It is understood 

that the Assignee shall be the sole owner of the annuity contract. 

None of the periodic payments (including the Claimant’s or Payee’s 

rights to such payments), or any portion thereof, may be 

accelerated, deferred, increased or decreased, anticipated, sold, 

assigned, pledged or encumbered by the Payee (or by any other 

person who becomes a recipient of periodic payments pursuant to 

the terms of the Non-Qualified Assignment Agreement or by 

operation of law), except as pursuant to a qualified order under IRC 

Section 5891, and as amended.

(ECF No. 78 at 2–3.) 

Plaintiff Amanda J. now seeks to sell her structured settlement payment rights emanating 

from the Order of this Court to Petitioner, despite the anti-assignment language in the approved 

Minor’s Compromise and the corresponding approval Order. (ECF No. 92 at 2.) Petitioner 

argues that “California courts have found that such language is unenforceable to bar the transfers 

of structured settlements.” (ECF No. 95-1 at 2, citing 321 Henderson Receivables, LLC v. 

Sioteco, 173 Cal. App. 4th 1059, 1074 (2011).) Indeed, California Insurance Code Section 10134 

et seq. governs the transfer of structured settlements in the state. 

(a) A direct or indirect transfer of structured settlement payment 

rights is not effective and a structured settlement obligor or annuity 

issuer is not required to make any payment directly or indirectly to 

any transferee of structured settlement payment rights unless the 

transfer has been approved in advance in a final court order based 

on express written findings by the court that:

(1) The transfer is in the best interest of the payee, taking into 

account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents.

Case 2:02-cv-00878-TLN-AC Document 97 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

...

(4) The transfer does not contravene any applicable statute or the 

order of any court or other government authority.

(f)(1) A petition under this article for approval of a transfer of 

structured settlement payment rights shall be made by the transferee 

and brought in the county in which the payee resides at the time the 

transfer agreement is signed by the payee, or, if the payee is not 

domiciled in California, in the county in which the payee resides or 

in the county where the structured settlement obligor or annuity 

issuer is domiciled. 

California Insurance Code Section 10139.5. Therefore, according to the California statute 

governing Plaintiff’s structured settlement, she needs approval of the court in the county in which 

she resides in order to make a transfer effective. Id. 

The annuity issuer/structured settlement obligor for Plaintiff’s structured settlement is 

Allstate Life Insurance Company (“Allstate”). (ECF No. 92 at 2.) According to Petitioner, 

Allstate “has requested that prior to the Petition being heard in the County of Placer (the county 

of residence for [Plaintiff Amanda J.]), that the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California [] issue an order permitting the Petition to be heard in Placer County....” 

(ECF No. 92 at 3.) Petitioner does not articulate the reason(s) Allstate has requested such an 

order. Presumably, since this Court issued the Order approving the structured settlement, Allstate 

has concerns that this Court could issue an order in the future finding that the transfer contravenes 

the Order of this Court. While this Court certainly has no authority to demand that the Placer 

County Superior Court hear this action, the Court does not take issue with Petitioner and Plaintiff 

bringing their request for transfer of structured settlement payment rights before the Placer 

County Superior Court as required by California Insurance Code Section 10139.5 (f)(1). The 

Court notes that this Order does not: approve the proposed transfer; find that the transfer does not 

contravene any applicable statute or the order of any court or other government authority; nor

does the Court find that it is in the best interests of the Plaintiff. Rather, the Court simply finds 

no reason why a judge of the Placer County Superior Court cannot make those determinations. If 

the Placer County Superior Court determines that the anti-assignment language approved by this 

Court is unenforceable and that the transfer is permissible under California law, the Court 

Case 2:02-cv-00878-TLN-AC Document 97 Filed 03/24/16 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

confirms that the transfer does not contravene any order of this Court. 

Therefore the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request and will permit the Petitioner to 

proceed in Placer County Superior Court regarding the sale of Plaintiff Amanda J.’s structured 

settlement payment rights emanating for the Order of this Court Approving of the Minor’s 

Compromise. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2016

Case 2:02-cv-00878-TLN-AC Document 97 Filed 03/24/16 Page 4 of 4