Clean Energy in California

“Renewable Energy, Renewable Energy 1, SCP, and Clean Energy are limited liability companies incorporated in Arizona which regularly conduct business in California.” (Complaint, ¶ 16.) The largest of the projects promoted by the Kirkland Defendants was located in Imperial, California. (Complaint ¶ 39.)

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Renewable Energy Projects Management I, LLC (Motion), filed on 4-19-21 under ROA No. 324, is GRANTED. The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Moving Counsel’s declaration indicates that the client, Renewable Energy Projects Management I, LLC, consents to the termination of representation. (Cabal Decl. filed on 4-19-21 under ROA No. 291.)

Case Number: 20STLC10806 Hearing Date: August 2, 2023 Dept: 25 Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc. v. Charles Fonarow 20stlc10806 TENTATIVE RULING : The Court, on its own motion, CONTINUES the hearing on Plaintiff Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc.s Motion for Attorneys Fees to August 11, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Defendant Renewable Energy Trust Capital, Inc.'S Notice Of Motion And Motion To Dismiss Or In The Alternative Stay The Action Pursuant To California Code Of Civil Procedure ?410.30 Matter on calendar for Wednesday, April 4, 2018, Line 5, DEFENDANT RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC.'S Notice Of Motion And Motion To Dismiss Or In The Alternative Stay The Action Pursuant To California Code Of Civil Procedure ?410.30. Defendant Renewable Energy Trust Capital, Inc.'

MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.

MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.

MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.

MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.

MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.

MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.

MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.

Conclusion & Order For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc.s Motion to Compel Defendant/Cross-Complainants Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, is DENIED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants request for sanctions is also DENIED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc.s Motion to Compel Defendant/Cross-Complainants Responses to Request for Production, Set One, is DENIED.

The loans were undertaken for certain home improvement work purportedly under the Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE) and California HERO program, which exist for the purposes of facilitating energy and water efficiency upgrades to homeowners. Plaintiff represents use of the loan proceeds for a list of upgrades, which amounted to $168,022 in charges from the identified contractor defendants.

DEFENDANT RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC.'S Motion To Dismiss Or In The Alternative Stay The Action Pursuant To California Code Of Civil Procedure Sections 410.30 And 418.10. Hearing required. The court reaffirms the previous tentative ruling: Defendant Renewable Energy Trust Capital, Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay is denied.

Notice Of Motion To Partially Seal Records DEFENDANT RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC.'S Motion To Partially Seal Records IS CONTINUED TO MARCH 20 2017 AT 9:30AM IN DEPT 302, PER THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES

DEFENDANT RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC'S Motion To Dismiss Or In The Alternative Stay The Action Pursuant To California Code Of Civil Procedure Sections 410.30 And 418.10. Defendant Renewable Energy Trust Capital, Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay is denied.

Billingsley to stop a payment of earned commissions scheduled to be wired to plaintiff California Renewable Energy Program, LLC (“CRE”). Mr. Billingsley himself notes in his declaration that he was “made aware” that CRE was making complaints about its commissions, and “was also told” of customer contract cancellations purportedly originating from CRE. Mr.

Sunfinity Solar-CA, LLC, et al Defendant Joseph Kiwak’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, is continued to November 30, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 40 to be heard with defendants Sunfinity Solar-CA, LLC and Sunfinity Renewable Energy, LLC’s motion for summary adjudication.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a homeowner who applied for and obtained funding from Defendant to finance home improvements she made under the Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE). PACE is a state-issued program enabling cities and counties to provide homeowners and businesses with financing to pay for energy efficiency, water efficiency, and renewable energy products and their installation. (FAC, ¶ 19.)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs, Citizens for Responsible Solar; California Unions for Reliable Energy; George Ellis; and James Hennegan, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate, and for declaratory and injunctive relief on January 8, 2021, against Respondents/Defendants, County of Riverside (County) and Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside (Board) and Real Parties in Interest/Defendants, Renewable Resources Group; Renewable Resources Group, LLC; and Renewable Resources Group Holding Company, Inc. (RRG.)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs, Citizens for Responsible Solar; California Unions for Reliable Energy; George Ellis; and James Hennegan, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate, and for declaratory and injunctive relief on January 8, 2021, against Respondents/Defendants, County of Riverside (County) and Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside (Board) and Real Parties in Interest/Defendants, Renewable Resources Group; Renewable Resources Group, LLC; and Renewable Resources Group Holding Company, Inc. (RRG.)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs, Citizens for Responsible Solar; California Unions for Reliable Energy; George Ellis; and James Hennegan, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate, and for declaratory and injunctive relief on January 8, 2021, against Respondents/Defendants, County of Riverside (County) and Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside (Board) and Real Parties in Interest/Defendants, Renewable Resources Group; Renewable Resources Group, LLC; and Renewable Resources Group Holding Company, Inc. (RRG.)

Motion to Compel Clean Energy Storage Inc.’s Further Reponses to Request for SALTON SEA ESTATES III Production of Documents and CVSW2206896 LLC vs CLEAN ENERGY Production of Documents, Set One and STORAGE INC.

first capitol consulting, inc., Plaintiff, vs. renewable entergy center llc, et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC 713009 Hearing Date: June 14, 2019 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT OR BYTTON’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT Background Plaintiff First Capitol Consulting, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on July 5, 2018, against Defendants Renewable Energy Center LLC (“Renewable”) and Ori Bytton (“Bytton”).

Sunfinity Solar-CA, LLC and Sunfinity Renewable Energy, LLC’s Motion for Summary Adjudication Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is granted. Sunfinity Solar-CA, LLC and Sunfinity Renewable Energy, LLC’s motion for summary adjudication is granted.

Next, Plaintiff argues that if, on the other hand, the subject of Proposition 39 is the creation of clean energy jobs, then the Proposition is invalid based on the tax break provided to cable companies under the initiative. Plaintiff alleges the tax break reduced funding for the clean energy fund and is not otherwise connected to the clean energy fund or the jobs that the fund was designed to support. (Complaint, ¶ 55.)

The Federal Clean Air Act (“Clean Air Act”) requires the implementation of solar power as expediently as practicable. Id. The SCAQMD is therefore required to use solar power as the best technology reasonable. Compl. at p.3. SCAQMD’s CEQA document and Plan do not evaluate a total solar conversion plan. Compl. at p.3. The Plan instead uses non-renewable natural gas resources, which is against state policy. Id.

MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Defaults: Defendants Hanford Renewable Energy, LLC (“HRE”), Madera Renewable Energy, LLC (“MRE”), Philip Verwey Dairy, Inc. (“PVD”), and Philip Verwey, individually, move to set aside their defaults. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Defaults: Defendants Hanford Renewable Energy, LLC (“HRE”), Madera Renewable Energy, LLC (“MRE”), Philip Verwey Dairy, Inc. (“PVD”), and Philip Verwey, individually, move to set aside their defaults. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Defaults: Defendants Hanford Renewable Energy, LLC (“HRE”), Madera Renewable Energy, LLC (“MRE”), Philip Verwey Dairy, Inc. (“PVD”), and Philip Verwey, individually, move to set aside their defaults. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Plaintiff and defendant EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. entered into a written settlement agreement on October 11, 2017. The proposed settlement complies with the requirements of Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 1800-1801 (1996). The proposed order should reflect 10 calendar days before the final approval hearing for the administrator to submit a declaration. CPT shall describe what efforts were taken on return envelopes.

Plaintiffs assert that West Hills breached the express warranty (Id., ¶ 28) and “did not perform its obligations under [the] Agreement in breach thereof—namely, by installing a renewable energy power system that failed to provide the promised energy savings” (Id., ¶¶ 32 and 39).

S-CV-0041243 Sunrise Energy Solutions v. China Sunergy (US) Clean Tech Motions to be Relieved as Counsel Counsel Arturo Santana, Jr.’s motions to be relieved as counsel for defendants CSUN Solar, Inc., China Sunergy (Hong Kong) Co., LTD, China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., LTD (PRC), China Sunergy (US) Clean Tech, Inc., China Sunergy Co. LTD. (BVI), China Sunergy Co., LTD. (Cayman), Sunergy California, LLC are granted, effective upon the filing of proofs of service of the signed order on defendants.

Plaintiffs claims in this action arise out of his participation in a Clean Energy Program (CEP) Loans program (also referred to as PACE programs).

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants Clean Power Management, LLC dba Clean Power Construction (CPM), Valta Energy, LLC, Valta Capital, LLC, Valta Capital Safe Harbor, LLC, Valta Solar, LLC, Valta, Inc., and Great Midwest Insurance Company, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, labor and materials furnished, account stated, quantum meruit, and foreclosure of mechanics lien.

Motion to Strike Portions of First SALTON SEA ESTATES III Amended Complaint by CLEAN CVSW2206896 LLC vs CLEAN ENERGY ENERGY STORAGE INC., TED STORAGE INC. THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Denied. For factual and procedural background, see Tentative Ruling No. 1 above. Legal authorities and analysis: “Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike [a pleading] or any part thereof[.]”

Motion to Strike Portions of First SALTON SEA ESTATES III Amended Complaint by CLEAN CVSW2206896 LLC vs CLEAN ENERGY ENERGY STORAGE INC., TED STORAGE INC. THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Denied. For factual and procedural background, see Tentative Ruling No. 1 above. Legal authorities and analysis: “Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike [a pleading] or any part thereof[.]”

Motion to Strike Portions of First SALTON SEA ESTATES III Amended Complaint by CLEAN CVSW2206896 LLC vs CLEAN ENERGY ENERGY STORAGE INC., TED STORAGE INC. THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Denied. For factual and procedural background, see Tentative Ruling No. 1 above. Legal authorities and analysis: “Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike [a pleading] or any part thereof[.]”

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant Canopy Energy OPPOSITION: None This employment action was filed on March 14, 2017 by plaintiff Saeedeh Payrovy against defendants National Renewable Energy Center, A-1 Solar Power Inc., and Canopy Energy.

SALTON SEA ESTATES III Motion To Deposit By Stakeholder by CVSW2206896 LLC vs CLEAN ENERGY WESTERN SURETY COMPANY. STORAGE INC. Tentative Ruling: The unopposed motion is granted. The proposed order will be signed at the hearing.

21CV02057 BOYD v CENTRAL COAST COMMUNITY ENERGY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE First, as to whether the rates 3CE charges customers constitutes an unlawful tax, in Schmid v. Sonoma Clean Power (N.D.Cal. Nov. 14, 2014, No.

MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS CORR VS CLEAN AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS MCC2000878 SPECIFIED IN THE REQUESTS FOR ENERGY STORAGE INC ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED BY WILLIAM CORR Tentative Ruling: GRANT the unopposed motion. GRANT 960.00 in sanctions, payable within 30 days.

MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS CORR VS CLEAN AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS MCC2000878 SPECIFIED IN THE REQUESTS FOR ENERGY STORAGE INC ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED BY WILLIAM CORR Tentative Ruling: GRANT the unopposed motion. GRANT 960.00 in sanctions, payable within 30 days.

MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS CORR VS CLEAN AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS MCC2000878 SPECIFIED IN THE REQUESTS FOR ENERGY STORAGE INC ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED BY WILLIAM CORR Tentative Ruling: GRANT the unopposed motion. GRANT 960.00 in sanctions, payable within 30 days.

MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS CORR VS CLEAN AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS MCC2000878 SPECIFIED IN THE REQUESTS FOR ENERGY STORAGE INC ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED BY WILLIAM CORR Tentative Ruling: GRANT the unopposed motion. GRANT 960.00 in sanctions, payable within 30 days.

DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT SET FOR HEARING ON MONDAY, JULY 10, 2017, LINE 3 DEFENDANT RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC.'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT SUSTAINED as to the seventh cause of action without leave to amend and OVERRULED as to all other causes of action.

No explanation having been provided for the non-appearance of defendants Genedics, LLC and Genedics Clean Energy, LLC on 8/19/15, the OSC re sanctions as to these defendants remains on calendar.

PACE financing provided local agencies with the authority to use special taxes pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act to finance the installation of energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements that are affixed to residential, commercial, industrial, or other property. ( Id .) The Mello-Roos Act allows a city, county, or public agency to adopt a resolution allowing special taxes to be levied within a certain area known as a Community Facilities District (“CFD”). (Govt.

The potential jurors should have a greater interest in the impact to the local community as the LEAPS project is a renewable energy source in California. California has a greater interest in the outcome of this litigation given the need for renewable energy sources.

Plaintiff and defendant EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. entered into a written settlement agreement on October 11, 2017. Plaintiff and class counsel were able to obtain a recovery for the class, the average recovery for whom is approximately $10,408.12. The proposed settlement complies with the requirements of Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 1800-1801 (1996).

CLEAN ENERY FUELS CORP., CLEAN ENERGY COMPRESSION CORP. AND IMW INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication brought by defendants Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (“CE Fuels”), Clean Energy Compression Corp. (“CE Compression”), and IMW Industries, Inc. is granted.

SALTON SEA ESTATES III MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CVSW2206896 LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY COMPLAINT BY CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC. STORAGE INC., TED THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Granted with 20 days leave to amend as to punitive damages and granted as to attorney fees claims without leave to amend. Factual and procedural background: See Tentative Ruling No. 1 above.

SALTON SEA ESTATES III MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CVSW2206896 LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY COMPLAINT BY CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC. STORAGE INC., TED THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Granted with 20 days leave to amend as to punitive damages and granted as to attorney fees claims without leave to amend. Factual and procedural background: See Tentative Ruling No. 1 above.

SALTON SEA ESTATES III MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CVSW2206896 LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY COMPLAINT BY CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC. STORAGE INC., TED THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Granted with 20 days leave to amend as to punitive damages and granted as to attorney fees claims without leave to amend. Factual and procedural background: See Tentative Ruling No. 1 above.

SALTON SEA ESTATES III MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CVSW2206896 LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY COMPLAINT BY CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC. STORAGE INC., TED THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Granted with 20 days leave to amend as to punitive damages and granted as to attorney fees claims without leave to amend. Factual and procedural background: See Tentative Ruling No. 1 above.

The Motion (ROA # 674) of Defendant and Cross-Complainant VM ENERGY, LLC ("Defendant" or "VM Energy") for summary adjudication of Cross-Defendant and Cross-Complainant JOHNSON & WOOD INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., now known as JAYHUSKERS, INC.)("Johnson & Wood") claims-reporting duties with respect to the underlying claim by Dallas Clean Energy McCommas Bluff, LLC ("DCEMB") against VM Energy (the "DCEMB Claim"), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

The Demurrer brought by defendant Ygrene Energy Fund, LLC is SUSTAINED in its entirety with leave to amend. Plaintiff Leila Martinez shall have 30 days leave to amend. Background and Procedural History Defendant Ygrene Energy Fund California, LLC (Defendant, Ygrene, or Lender) administrates a financing program known as Property Assessed Clean Energy or "PACE."

Cross-Defendants Golden State Finance Authority and Ygrene Energy Fund also demur on the same ground. Cross-claimants oppose both demurrers. The FAXC argues that they are victims of a scheme in which construction contractors solicit work to be funded by California's Property Assessed Clean Energy (commonly, "PACE") program. The PACE program provides public financing for qualifying environmental retrofits of residential property.

Background In or around October 2017, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ygrene Energy Fund Californiaa State of California Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Administratorprovided Defendants/Cross-Defendants MEK Acquisitions, LLC (MEK) and its Managing Member Kenneth Berry (Berry) (collectively, the MEK Defendants) approximately $83,647.50 (PACE Loan) for energy efficiency improvements to the real property commonly referred to as 1943 Hillcrest Drive, Los Angeles, California 90016 (Subject Property).

Explanation: The plaintiffs’ solar power system installation was funded through a Property Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE”) program that allows financing for home improvement projects to be repaid by a special property tax assessment. Plaintiffs filed this action against The Solar Group, Inc. and Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc.

Matter on calendar for Wednesday, November 22, 2023, Line 10, DEFENDANT TRUE RENEWABLE ENERGY INCORPORATED's Motion To Recall And Quash Writ Of Execution And To Return Property Levied Upon. Defendant's "Motion To Recall And Quash Writ Of Execution And To Return Property Levied Upon" is granted save that plaintiff can retain $816.15. All other funds must be returned to defendant. Judge Quinn is unavailable to hear this motion.

(See California Clean Energy Committee, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 187.) Parties are DIRECTED TO APPEAR for a hearing on the petition.

Alon USA Energy Inc. owned the Refinery from 2006 to 2017. World Energy has owned the Refinery since 2018. (AR 3956.) AltAir is a subsidiary of World Energy. (AR 7823.) The Original Renewable Fuels Project In 2013, the City approved the Original Renewable Fuels Project. (AR 3935, 3967-3968.)

When a special tax lien has been recorded, the property owner is granted access to PACE financing to pay for eligible energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements for her property. This financing is repaid over time to the government entity through special taxes imposed on the property under SB 555. (Gov. Code § 53340(e).) Here, the government entity was CVAG, a joint powers authority under California Government Code section 6500 et seq., and a duly constituted public entity and agency. (UF 1.)

10/1/2020 Dept. 73 Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding CLEAN ENERGY OF AMERICA GROUP, INC. v. SOUTHLAND ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. (BC568285) Counsel for Plaintiff/judgment creditor: Larry Rothman MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT (filed 9/8/2020) Judgment Creditor’s request for judicial notice is granted. The motion is denied without prejudice to judgment creditor’s refiling motion with additional evidence and for proper notice.

The Motion (ROA # 473) of Defendant and Cross-Complainant VM ENERGY, LLC ("VM Energy") for an order compelling Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant ENDURANCE AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY ("Endurance") to produce a complete copy of its claim file from the underlying dispute between Dallas Clean Energy McCommas Bluff, LLC and VM Energy, without redaction, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480(a) and Evidence Code sections 771 and 912 on the grounds that Endurance has failed and refused to produce

Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh is an engineer and inventor in the clean energy technology field. Defendant Terry L. Vechik is a marketer of inventions. In 2008, Plaintiff began working with Defendant to help monetize clean energy technology developed by Plaintiff. Subsequently, Plaintiff alleges Defendant began falsely claiming to be an equal partner in Plaintiffs work.

The schedules also purport to include "Kansas oil royalties," "JRW Investment Funds," and "100,000 units of Clean Energy Fluid Systems, LLC." Most of those assets are further identified in the body of the trust agreement itself for specific distribution. Settlor died on January 18, 2017, without perfecting title to the aforementioned scheduled assets in the name of the trust. Petitioner successor trustee seeks a determination that the assets are held in the revocable trust.

CLEAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC ET AL EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial Dates is unopposed and is granted, the Court finding good cause for the requested continuance. The Court vacates the trial date of March 25, 2024 and the trial readiness conference set for March 21, 2024. This matter is set for a Case Management Conference on April 3, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. for resetting of trial dates. Counsel for the Plaintiff shall submit a form of order within two weeks.

However, the court respectfully rejects this argument as well, and petitioners’ reliance on California Clean Energy Committee v. City of San Jose (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1325 (“Clean Energy”) is misplaced. In Clean Energy, the local agency had delegated the authority to comply with CEQA’s environmental review to its planning commission. (Id. at pp. 1337-1338.) The delegation, however, was improper because the planning commission did not have the authority to approve the project at issue.

However, the court respectfully rejects this argument as well, and petitioners’ reliance on California Clean Energy Committee v. City of San Jose (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1325 (“Clean Energy”) is misplaced. In Clean Energy, the local agency had delegated the authority to comply with CEQA’s environmental review to its planning commission. (Id. at pp. 1337-1338.) The delegation, however, was improper because the planning commission did not have the authority to approve the project at issue.

However, the court respectfully rejects this argument as well, and petitioners’ reliance on California Clean Energy Committee v. City of San Jose (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1325 (“Clean Energy”) is misplaced. In Clean Energy, the local agency had delegated the authority to comply with CEQA’s environmental review to its planning commission. (Id. at pp. 1337-1338.) The delegation, however, was improper because the planning commission did not have the authority to approve the project at issue.

Case Number: 20STLC10806 Hearing Date: August 11, 2023 Dept: 25 Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc. v. Charles Fonarow 20STLC10806 ANALYSIS: I. Background On December 31, 2020, Plaintiff Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc.

CLEAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC ET AL EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied her burden under Code of Civil Procedure §1048(a) to show that the two actions involve a common question of law or fact. The Motion is granted, the matters are consolidated for all purposes. Butte County Superior Court Case No. 23CV01166 is designated the lead case.

Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh is an engineer and inventor in the clean energy technology field. Defendant Terry L. Vechik is a marketer of inventions. In 2008, Khodabakhsh began working with Vechik to help monetize clean energy technology developed by Khodabakhsh. Subsequently, Khodabakhsh alleges Vechik began falsely claiming to be an equal partner in Khodabakhshs work.

Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh is an engineer and inventor in the clean energy technology field. Defendant Terry L. Vechik is a marketer of inventions. In 2008, Khodabakhsh began working with Vechik to help monetize clean energy technology developed by Khodabakhsh. Subsequently, Khodabakhsh alleges Vechik began falsely claiming to be an equal partner in Khodabakhshs work.

Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh is an engineer and inventor in the clean energy technology field. Defendant Terry L. Vechik is a marketer of inventions. In 2008, Plaintiff began working with Defendant to help monetize clean energy technology developed by Plaintiff. Subsequently, Plaintiff alleges Defendant began falsely claiming to be an equal partner in Plaintiffs work.

Plaintiff’s FAC alleged therein: Plaintiff is an engineer, inventor and innovator who specializes in clean energy generating machinery. Plaintiff is the owner of certain patents and intellectual property that converts hydrogen into clean energy (“Hydrogen Technology”) including, but not limited to, United States Patent No. US 2010/0122914 A1 and PCT No. WO/21010/083344.

When a special tax lien has been recorded, the property owner is granted access to PACE financing to pay for eligible energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements for her property, and the financing is repaid over time to the government entity through special taxes imposed on the property under SB 555. (Gov. Code § 53340(e).)

(“WHCI”) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby WHCI agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for plaintiff’s payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. The complaint herein was filed 2/16/17.

The Court is inclined to grant the unopposed motions as well as the request for monetary sanctions against Defendant True Renewable Energy Incorporated and Defendant's counsel, Mike Chappars, in the amount of $699.11. However, the moving papers do not specify a workable time frame for service of code-compliant responses without objections sought by the moving party. The request that the responses to be provided "without delay" is unworkable. For the 9:00 a.m.

The Program “is intended primarily for retrofit activities to replace outdated inefficient equipment and to install new equipment that reduces energy consumption, produces renewable energy, or increases water conservation.” (Id. at p. 6.) The Program is also available to purchasers of new homes and businesses who wish to add improvements after taking title to the property. (Id. at pp. 6-7.)

However, Plaintiff alleges that he "was the primary person at Fidelity and Chicago who was competing with Stewart for business in the renewable energy market" and that his "competition needed to be restricted and restrained for the conspiracy and agreement to be successful." (FAC, ¶ 144.) Further, Plaintiff alleges he was recruited by Chicago to compete with Stewart. (FAC, ¶ 13.)

CR claims the name “sounds like it is equivalent to Newhall’s Zero Net Energy where the project generates on-site, via renewable sources, as much electricity as it consumes.” (CR Brief 6:30-31.) CR also argues the GHG emission reductions are “mostly illusory or unsubstantiated” and have no relationship to the electric sector.

Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh is an engineer and inventor in the clean energy technology field. Defendant Terry L. Vechik is a marketer of inventions. In 2008, Plaintiff began working with Defendant to help monetize clean energy technology developed by Plaintiff. Subsequently, Plaintiff alleges Defendant began falsely claiming to be an equal partner in Plaintiffs work.

DFT - Reliable Energy Management, Inc., George R Garcia (1) Demurrer to Complaint (2) Motion to Strike Complaint DFT - Pw Stephens Environmental, Inc. (3) Demurrer to Complaint (4) Motion to Strike Complaint (1)DEMURRER (Defendant Reliable Energy Management, Inc.) (2)DEMURRER (Defendant PW Stephens Environmental, Inc.) Defendant Reliable Energy Management, Inc.’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.

She further states that the “[p]remise is to process raw renewable feedstocks, not purchased pretreated feedstocks like those received at the NuStar rail facility.

Background Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff is an engineer, inventor and innovator who specializes in clean energy generating machinery. Plaintiff is the owner of certain patents and intellectual property that converts hydrogen into clean energy (“Hydrogen Technology”) including, but not limited to, United States Patent No. US 2010/0122914 A1 and PCT No. WO/21010/083344.

Finally, renewable diesel was becoming a popular alternative to NOx mitigants in early 2021. Customers considered and did purchase renewable diesel after [Defendants] exit from the market, instead of relying on traditional NOx mitigating additives (BC-EC1c or Vesta). [Citation omitted.] (MSJ, p. 25:918.) This is sufficient for Defendant to meet its initial burden on this argument.

(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.

(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.

(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.

(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.

(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.

(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.

(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.

(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.

(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.