Exhibit,Appendix: Michael Li, Individually And Derivatively On Behalf Of Fluhing Endoscopy Center, Llc v. King-Chen Hon, Alan C. Yao, Jackson Kuan, Lana Choy, Flushing Endoscopy Center, Llc

Case Number: 21STCV12444 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Dept: 78 Superior Court of California ¿ County of Los Angeles ¿ Department 78 ¿ ¿ ENCINO NEWCASTLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION , Plaintiff (s) , vs. DEL SOL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. , et al., Defendant ( s ) . Case No.:¿ 21STCV12444 Hearing Date:¿ July 10 , 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR OSC RE: CONTEMPT On May 15, 2024, defendant/cross-complainant D el Sol Property Management, Inc. ( D el Sol ) filed the instant motion for an OSC Re: Contempt based on non-party HOA Management Professionals, Inc.s (HMP) purported failure to produce business records pursuant to a subpoena issued on December 29, 2023 . T he hearing date is set for July 10, 2024. On May 28, 2024, HMP filed a motion to quash the December 29, 2023 deposition subpoena for production of business records issued by Del Sol . The hearing date is set for August 13, 2024. Considering the relationship between Del Sols motion for contempt, and HMPs motion to quash its underlying basis, the Court finds it in the interest of judicial efficiency and economy to continue Del Sols motion to be heard at the same time as HMPs related motion. Therefore, on its own motion, the Court CONTINUES Del Sols Hearing on Motion for an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt (CCP 1209) to August 13, 2024 at 8 :30 a .m. in Department 78 of Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Moving Party is ordered to give notice . DATED: July 9 , 2024 __________________________ Hon. Michelle C. Kim Judge of the Superior Court PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: " Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. " If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line SUBMIT followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsels contact information, and the identity of the party submitting . " Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. " If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Case Number: 24STCV04100 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: 32 JUSTIN SMITH, Plaintiff, v. ALLA ZORIKOVA, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 24STCV04100 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 [ TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant alla zorikovas demurrer to complaint BACKGROUND On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff Justin Smith filed this action against Defendants Alla Zorikova, Olivia Jeong, and Joycelyn Yew. The complaint asserts causes of action for (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), (2) violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and (3) fraud. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants run an illegal dog breeding operation and operate out of Defendant Lews home in Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely advertise their dogs as healthy, trained, and top quality. Plaintiff allegedly purchased a puppy from Defendants that turned out to be sick, dirty, and not properly socialized. Plaintiff allegedly contacted Defendant Zorikova for a refund, and Defendant Zorkova allegedly refused, instead instructing Plaintiff to sell the dog to another buyer himself. On June 20, 2024, Defendant Zorikova filed the instant demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. DISCUSSION Proof of electronic service shall include all of the following: (1) The electronic service address and the residence or business address of the person making the electronic service. (2) The date of electronic service. (3) The name and electronic service address of the person served. (4) A statement that the document was served electronically. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013b(b).) The proof of service accompanying Defendants demurrer does not include the electronic service address of the person making the electronic service, i.e. , Defendant Zorikova. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1013b(b)(1).) Furthermore, the proof of service is ambiguous as to whether the documents were served by mail or email. The proof attests that the documents were served on counsel for all parties who have appeared in this action as follows, on 06/18/2024 via email, but simultaneously states that documents were SENT VIA U.S. MAIL/EMAIL. If the documents were mailed, it would be improper for Defendant Zorikova to execute the service because she is a party to the action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(a) [person executing mail service must be over the age of 18 years and not a party to the cause ].) The demurrer is overruled for lack of proper service. CONCLUSION Defendant Alla Zorikovas demurrer is OVERRULED. JUSTIN SMITH, Plaintiff, v. ALLA ZORIKOVA, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 24STCV04100 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 [ TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant alla zorikovas motion to quash service of summons BACKGROUND On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff Justin Smith filed this action against Defendants Alla Zorikova, Olivia Jeong, and Joycelyn Yew. The complaint asserts causes of action for (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), (2) violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and (3) fraud. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants run an illegal dog breeding operation and operate out of Defendant Lews home in Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely advertise their dogs as healthy, trained, and top quality. Plaintiff allegedly purchased a puppy from Defendants that turned out to be sick, dirty, and not properly socialized. Plaintiff allegedly contacted Defendant Zorikova for a refund, and Defendant Zorkova allegedly refused, instead instructing Plaintiff to sell the dog to another buyer himself. On June 21, 2024, Defendant Zorikova filed the instant motion to quash based on defective service of the summons and complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. LEGAL STANDARD [T]he court in which an action is pending has jurisdiction over a party from the time summons is served on him as provided by Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10). (Code Civ. Proc, § 410.50(a).) [A] court acquires jurisdiction over a party by proper service of process or by that party's general appearance. ( In re Jennifer O. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 539, 547.) Actual notice of a lawsuit is not a substitute for proper service of process. ( Abers v. Rohrs (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1206.) A defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).) DISCUSSION Even without proper service, a defendant who makes a general appearance submits to the jurisdiction of the court and waives any challenge to personal jurisdiction. (See In re Jennifer O., supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 547; ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 210.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1014 lists the acts which constitute a general appearance. ( Air Machine Com SRL v. Superior Court (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 414, 425; Humphrey v. Bewley (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 571, 580.) Section 1014 provides as follows: A defendant appears in an action when the defendant answers, demurs , files a notice of motion to strike, files a notice of motion to transfer pursuant to Section 396b, moves for reclassification pursuant to Section 403.040, gives the plaintiff written notice of appearance, or when an attorney gives notice of appearance for the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1014.) Defendant Zorikova filed a demurrer on June 20, 2024, thus making a general appearance and consenting to the Courts jurisdiction. As a result, the motion to quash is moot. CONCLUSION Defendant Alla Zorikovas motion to quash service of summons is DENIED.

Re: Tpine Leasing Capital L.P. v. Jarnail Multani Superior Court Case No. 23CECG03197 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 (Dept. 501) Motion: by Defendant to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion to set aside default and default judgment without prejudice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Explanation: No Copy of Proposed Pleading Application for relief from a judgment or court order must be filed timely (within six months of the judgment or order) and must be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other proposed pleading to be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473 subd. (b).) Here, defendant’s default was taken October 19, 2023, and judgment was entered against him on March 21, 2024. Defendant filed this motion on April 22, 2024. Defendant’s application was timely. However, defendant did not provide a proposed responsive pleading pursuant to code. No Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise or Excusable Neglect A judgment may be vacated and so may the entry of default that preceded it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473 subd. (b).) The court is empowered to relieve a party “upon any terms as may be just … from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Id.) This decision lies in the discretion of the court, and can only be exercised if the moving party establishes a proper ground for relief, by the proper procedure, and within the time limits. (Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 495.) Here, defendant did not demonstrate that his failure to respond was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. He stated that he learned of the default entered against him but “was not aware of the nature of any pending litigation.” (Multani Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant incorrectly stated that the default should be “set aside due to his mistake…in not responding to the lawsuit.” (Id.) He described no specific mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect that led to him not responding. Defendant briefly stated that he was improperly served, however did not establish it as a valid reason for not responding to the Complaint. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Tentative Ruling Issued By: DTT on 7/9/2024 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)

16CV02814 BARTEL v. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF BARTEL’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS Given the parties representation that they are finalizing a stipulation, no tentative will be posted. Page 3 of 3

Case Number: 22STCV28025 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Dept: 53 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Central District Department 53 karen bang , et al.; Plaintiffs, vs. dill veterinary hospital, inc. , et al.; Defendants . Case No.: 22STCV28025 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Time: 10:00 a.m. [tentative] Order RE: plaintiffs motion to continue trial MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Karen Bang and Linda Agajanian Otey RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants Dill Veterinary Hospital, Inc., and Amber Oliver Motion to Continue Trial The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs Karen Bang and Linda Agajanian Otey (Plaintiffs) move the court for an order continuing trial in this action, currently scheduled to begin on August 14, 2024, and all related deadlines. Defendants Dill Veterinary Hospital, Inc., and Amber Oliver (Defendants) have filed an opposition to Plaintiffs motion, stating that, while they do not oppose a brief trial continuance of 30-60 days, they oppose Plaintiffs request to continue all discovery and trial-related deadlines. The court finds that Plaintiffs have shown good cause to continue the trial and all related deadlines based on (1) the unavailability of Plaintiffs lead counsel on August 14, 2024, (2) Plaintiffs counsels representation that the parties are in the process of scheduling various depositions, and (3) the courts consideration of the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d), including that (i) there have not been any prior continuances of trial, (ii) Defendants will not be unduly prejudiced by the continuance of trial and related deadlines, (iii) Plaintiffs lead counsel will be engaged in another multi-week trial, and (iv) the interests of justice favor the continuance. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1332, subds. (c)(3), (c)(6), (d)(2), (d)(5), (d)(8), (d)(10); Lipps Decl., ¶¶ 1, 2-3.) The court therefore grants Plaintiffs motion and makes the orders set forth below. ORDER The court grants plaintiffs Karen Bang and Linda Agajanian Oteys motion to continue trial. The court orders: 1. The trial in this action is continued from August 14, 2024, to March 12, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 53. 2. The Final Status Conference is continued from August 2, 2024, to February 27, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53. 3. All discovery cut-off and discovery motion cut-off dates, and deadlines for the exchange of information concerning expert trial witnesses shall be based on the new trial date.¿ 4. The parties and their counsel shall hold a meeting, conference call, or videoconference to discuss and try to settle all issues in the case no later than January 17, 2025. The court orders plaintiffs Karen Bang and Linda Agajanian Otey to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 10, 2024 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 23STCV09536 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Dept: 54 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles California Credits Group, LLC, Plaintiff, Case No.: 23STCV09536 vs. Tentative Ruling Foster Poultry Farms, LLC f/k/a Foster Poultry Farms, et al., Defendants. Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter Motion To Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Moving Party : Plaintiff California Credits Group, LLC Responding Party : Defendant Foster Poultry Farms, LLC T/R : THE MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART. PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:30 am on the day of the hearing. The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply. BACKGROUND Plaintiff California Credits Group, LLC sued defendants Foster Poultry Farms, LLC and Foster Farms, LLC on April 28, 2023 for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As alleged in its complaint, Plaintiff provides tax credit services with a primary focus on California Enterprise Zone credits. (Compl., ¶ 9.) Defendant Foster Poultry was one of Plaintiffs clients; Defendant Foster Farms acquired Foster Poultry in June 2022. ( Id. , ¶¶ 11-13.) Under the contract, Plaintiff would locate employees for Foster Poultry who, once employed, would generate tax credits for Foster Poultry based on Enterprise Zone economic incentives. ( Ibid. ) Foster Poultry agreed to pay Plaintiff a portion of the credits generated when the credits were utilized, that is, when they were actually applied to reduce Foster Poultrys tax obligations. ( Id. , ¶ 14-15, Exhs. A-B [initial 2005 and amended 2007 contracts].) The Contract anticipated the possibility that Foster Poultry might be acquired, and there may be tax credits that had been generated by Plaintiffs recommended hires, but not yet utilized . ( Id. , ¶ 20.) Those credits utility might be cut off by an acquisition. ( Id. , ¶¶ 21-22.) In that case, the contract required that all pending credits be deemed utilized, and Plaintiff paid for their use, upon Foster Poultrys acquisition. ( Id. , ¶ 22.) The private equity firm Atlas Holdings, Inc. acquired Foster Poultry in June 2022. ( Id. , ¶¶ 4-5.) The transaction was structured so that Foster Poultrys co-defendant, Foster Farms, acquired Foster Poultry, and Atlas in turn acquired Foster Farms. ( Id. , ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges that when Atlas acquired Foster Poultry, it cut off $70 million in outstanding, unutilized tax credits generated by Plaintiff. ( Id. , ¶ 30.) On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to its Requests for Production (Set One) propounded on Foster Poultry. ANALYSIS Plaintiff moves for further responses to its Requests for Production (RPDs) Nos. 9-11 and 40. Plaintiff frames these as requests for communications relating to the June 2022 reorganizing transactions that suspended the tax credits allocated by [Plaintiff]. (MPA, 4:22-23.) Plaintiff contends these documents must be produced because they are critical to understanding the scope and significance of the June 2022 transactions and determining whether they constitute a Reorganization under the parties Agreements. ( Id. , 26-28.) Defendant argues that communications involving the June 2022 transactions are irrelevant to whether the transaction was a Reorganization for purposes of the parties contract. Defendant contends that all Plaintiff needs are the documents governing the transactions namely, the June 2022 Purchase Agreement (2022 Agreement). Defendant already has produced the 2022 Agreement. Defendant also objects that the requests are unduly burdensome, Plaintiff has not properly met and conferred about them, and, to the extent some portion of the materials might be relevant, Plaintiffs Requests should be narrowed after Plaintiff obtains its still-outstanding, more reasonable discovery. Defendant has produced to Plaintiff excerpts of the 2022 Agreement that Plaintiff contends triggered the reorganization provisions of the Contract. Defendant contends this satisfies Plaintiffs asserted need to evaluate whether Defendants reorganization triggered the Contract. Defendant cannot unilaterally identify what evidence Plaintiff needs. For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. [Citation.] ... [T]he scope of discovery extends to any information that reasonably might lead to other evidence that would be admissible at trial. Thus, the scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense. ( Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 16111612, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 341.) Communications surrounding the execution of the 2022 Agreement may lead to admissible evidence about how its execution was expected to impact the terms of the Contract. Plaintiff may explore evidence of how the 2022 Agreement was executed, and whether those facts are relevant to the alleged breach. Defendants have not shown undue burden. Some of the phrasing of Plaintiffs requests is overbroad; the Court will sustain Defendants objections in part: The Court grants Plaintiffs motion and orders Defendant to provide Code-compliant responses to all the disputed requests within thirty (30) days of this ruling, except: 1. Defendant need only produce documents created between June 1, 2021 and the filing of the complaint, and 2. The terms in connection with and in connection with or following are narrowed to as a result of for purposes of this order. The Court finds Defendant was substantially justified in opposing Plaintiffs motion. The Court awards no sanctions.

20CV01416 VALLEY FRESH PRODUCE, INC. v. BARRAGAN (UNOPPOSED) MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL The unopposed motions to be relieved as counsel filed by Dianna L. Albini are granted as they comply with California Rules of Court, Rule, 3.1362. The court will sign the proposed orders. Page 1 of 3 Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

Case Number: 24LBCV00120 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: S27 Plaintiff has discovery motions scheduled for 7/09/24, 7/18/24, and 7/23/24. There is also a status conference re: appointment of a discovery referee scheduled for 7/09/24. In the interest of efficiency, the Court continues the 7/09/24 and 7/18/24 motions to 7/23/24, to be heard concurrently with the currently scheduled motion to deem RFAs admitted. The Court takes off calendar the status conference re: appointment of discovery referee. Upon further review, all pending motions are related motions to compel responses to initial discovery (and deem RFAs admitted), based on the contention that Defendant has not served any timely responses to outstanding discovery. The Court finds this is not the type of discovery dispute that warrants appointment of a referee. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org . If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar . If a party submits on the tentative, the partys email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.