Motion,Ex Parte: Delphi Construction, Inc. vs. Highrock Church, Inc.

Case Number: 23SMCV03493 Hearing Date: July 26, 2024 Dept: M CASE NAME: Southern California Injured Workers LLC, v. Amigo Management CASE NO.: 23SMCV03493 MOTION: OSC Re: Preliminary Injunction HEARING DATE: 7/26/2024 Legal Standard Under Code of Civil Procedure section 526(a), a preliminary injunction may be issued in the following cases: 1) When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually. 2) When it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action. 3) When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. 4) When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief. 5) Where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief. 6) Where the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings. 7) Where the obligation arises from a trust. In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court considers two factors: 1) the reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial (CCP §526(a)(1)); and 2) a balancing of the irreparable harm that the moving party is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied compared to the harm that the non-moving party is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. (CCP §526(a)(2); 14859 Moorpark Homeowners Assn. v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1402.) A preliminary injunction is an interim remedy designed to maintain the status quo pending a decision on the merits. ( MaJor v. Miraverde Homeowners Assn. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 618, 623.) [A] cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted. ( Id . (citing Shell Oil Co. v. Richter (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 164, 168).) The courts ruling on a preliminary injunction is not an adjudication of the merits, is not a trial, and does not require a statement of decision. ( Cohen v. Board of Supervisors , (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 286.) The judge is not required to state her reasons for granting or denying a preliminary injunction; a cursory statement is sufficient. ( City of Los Altos v. Barnes , (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1198.) A proposed order must be presented to the judge for signature, with any required undertaking, within one day after the preliminary injunction is granted, or other time ordered by the judge. (CRC 3.1150(f).) EVIDENTIARY ISSUES Cross-Defendants objections to the Marchant declaration are GRANTED as to nos. 17-24 (foundation, personal knowledge and legal conclusion). The remainder of objections are OVERRULED. Cross-Complainants objections to the Tantuwaya declaration are ruled on as follows: Sustained as to objections nos. 1 and 43. Sustained in part as to no. 3, as to the portion starting with who I later . . .. Sustained in part as to no. 12, as to the portion starting with In February of 2022 and in without my knowledge and/or authority. Sustained in part as to no. 44, as to the portion starting with Also, a total of . . . and ending in December 31, 2022. All other objections are OVERRULED. Cross-Complainants objections to the supplemental Winthrop declaration are OVERRULED. The Court agrees that the attached documents should have been part of a supplemental request for judicial notice. The Court also agrees that while the Court may take judicial notice of the documents existence, it cannot take judicial notice of any factual assertions therein. Cross-Complainants objections to the supplemental Marchant declaration are OVERRULED. Cross-Complainants request for judicial notice is granted. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) Cross-Defendants request for judicial notice is granted. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) Analysis Cross-Complainant Funding4Doctors LLC ("Funding") moves for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Cross-Defendants Injured Worker Medical Group, LLC ("IWMG") and Dr. Vrijesh S. Tantuwaya from disbursing and/or otherwise dissipating funds collected and being collected on behalf of Funding pursuant to 30 Masters Receivables Advance Agreements ("Agreements 1-30"). Specifically, they request the following order: (1) Cross-Defendants are ENJOINED from taking any action whatsoever that will dissipate the funds collected on account of the thirty (30) Masters Receivables Advance Agreements (Agreements 1-30) as set for in the Verified Cross-Complaint filed by Funding, as well as the Cross-Complaint filed by IWMG, including, but not limited to, paying, disbursing, distributing, or otherwise dissipating funds collected and being collected by IWMG; (2) Cross-Defendants are ORDERED to provide Funding with an accounting of all funds collected on account of Agreements 1-30 within fourteen (14) days of this Order, and to identify all banks and/or financial institutions at which such funds are being held; and (3) Cross-Defendants are ORDERED to provide a copy of this Order by Certified Mail to any and all banks and financial institutions at which such funds are being held. Funding reasons that it will succeed on the merits of their contract claims because the Agreements are admitted by IWMG and personally guaranteed by Dr. Tantuwaya. Further, Funding will suffer great and irreparable injury because Cross-Defendants may use and/or distribute the amounts that are due under the Agreements, and by the time the case is over, there may be no money left. (See Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Svcs., Inc. v. Riley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1414 [an injunction may be granted when a party to the action is doing or threatens an act in violation of another party's rights and tending to render the judgment ineffectual].) Funding does not meet its burden to show its irreparable harm, such that the balance of equities favors an injunction. Funding cites no substantive evidence that IWMG or Dr. Tantuwaya are dissipating the disputed funds rendering ineffectual any resulting judgment. Funding merely asserts in conclusory terms that the funds are at risk of dissipation by Cross-Defendants IWMG and Dr. Tantuwaya as they are attempting to use the funds due to Funding for their own benefit to pay restitution to IWMG and Dr. Tantuwaya's victims in the open and ongoing criminal investigation against Dr. Tantuwaya. (Marchant Decl., ¶ 18.) Cross-Defendants deny this assertion. (Krieger Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.) Indeed, restitution could not be owed in an open and ongoing criminal investigation. IWMG and Dr. Tantuwaya also present evidence that they continue to generate funds and receivables through their ongoing medical practices. (Tantuwaya Decl., ¶ 122.) Any judgment against them would therefore not be ineffectual. Funding therefore fails to demonstrate irreparable harm. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

C22-01746 CASE NAME: ALBERT SEENO, JR. VS. ALBERT SEENO, III *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: FOR COMPLEX CASE DESIGNATION FILED BY: SEENO, ALBERT D., III *TENTATIVE RULING:* Before the Court is Defendant Albert D. Seeno III and Defendant Discovery Builders, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”)’s motion for complex case designation. The motion is opposed by Plaintiffs Albert D. Seeno, Jr. (“Seeno”), Seecon Financial & Construction Co., Inc. (“Seecon”), Seecon Built Homes, Inc. (“Seecon Built Homes”), Albert D. Seeno Construction Co. (“ADSCO”), West Coast Home Builders, Inc. (“West Coast”), North Village Development, Inc. (“North Village”), and Alsan Financial & Leasing, Inc. (“Alsan”) and (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). This hearing is scheduled along with related matters C23-00614, C23-01658, C24-00327, N24-0406, and C23-01029. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion to designate this case (C22-01746) complex and consolidates it with the related matters C23-00614, C23-01658, C24-00327, N24-0406, and C23- 01029 for discovery and pretrial determinations. The Court deems case number C22-01746 complex and it is assigned for all purposes to the Honorable John P. Devine, Department 9. Analysis Defendants argue that this case is properly designated as a complex action because it will involve a large number of witnesses and documents, will involve numerous complex pretrial motions, and is likely to require coordination among different departments, counties, and courts. Plaintiffs argue that complex case designation is not appropriate because it is not complex as that term is defined by CRC 3.400. Specifically, that this case involves a “focused pool” of witnesses and documentary evidence, that any pre-trial motions will rely on relatively straightforward corporate law, and “any need for coordination with other cases only arises from Seeno III’s artificial claim splitting.” On reply, Defendants argue that the anticipated witnesses and documents are much broader than Plaintiffs suggest. They also point to the number and complexity of motions that have been heard and are scheduled in this case. A “complex case” is an action that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the Court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the Court, the parties, and counsel. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.400(a).) In deciding whether an action is a complex case, the Court addresses whether the action is likely to involve the following: (1) numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve; (2) management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence; (3) management of a large number of separately represented parties; (4) coordination with related actions pending in one or more Courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal Court; or (5) substantial postjudgment judicial supervision. (Id. at (b).) An action is provisionally a complex case if it involves one or more of the following types of claims: (1) antitrust or trade regulation claims; (2) construction defect claims involving many parties or structures; (3) securities claims or investment losses involving many parties; (4) environmental or toxic tort claims involving many parties; (5) claims involving mass torts; (6) claims involving class actions; or (7) insurance coverage claims arising out of any of the claims listed above. (Id. at (c).) Here, the Court finds that the case is properly designated as complex. This case has already seen a number of complex motions which have consumed significant Court resources. This is in addition to the frequent use of ex parte procedures by the parties in this case. Additionally, the parties were also given the opportunity to brief the issue of consolidation of this case with related matters including case numbers C23-00614, C23-01658, C24-00327, and C23-01029. The Court finds that consolidation is merited here. “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048, subd. (a).) The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and the danger of inconsistent adjudications. (See Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.) The consolidation of cases under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a) is a matter of trial court discretion. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 979- 980.) There is significant party and issue overlap between this case and the related matters C23-00614, C23-01658, C24-00327, and C23-01029. Consolidation would promote judicial economy. The Court reserves the issue of whether to consolidate all cases for trial and at this time consolidates for the limited purpose of discovery and pretrial matters.

22CV021552: CENTRAL VALLEY FAST FOODS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. vs PRILA FOOD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order filed by CENTRAL VALLEY FAST FOODS, INC., a California Corporation (Plaintiff) + in Department 17 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Frank Roesch The Motion for Protective Order filed by BUNCH OF BULL, INC., a California Corporation, HIGH ROLLERS, INC., a California Corporation, CENTRAL VALLEY FAST FOODS, INC., a California Corporation, QSR WEST DEVELOPMENT ONE, INC., a California Corporation on 07/02/2024 is Denied. Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Central Valley Fast Foods, Inc., QSR West Development One, Inc., Bunch of Bull, Inc. and High Rollers, Inc.’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Protective Order is DENIED in its entirety. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) The description of documents sought by the subpoena at issue is sufficiently specific and narrowly tailored such that documents responsive to this subpoena would either be directly relevant to this litigation or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the issues central to this case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV021552: CENTRAL VALLEY FAST FOODS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. vs PRILA FOOD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order filed by CENTRAL VALLEY FAST FOODS, INC., a California Corporation (Plaintiff) + in Department 17

MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT ON SUPERIOR INTEGRATED COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT/ CVCO2401857 SERVICES VS QUINONEZ WARRANTY OF SUPERIOR INTEGRATED SERVICES BY BRIAN QUINONEZ Tentative Ruling: No tentative at this time, due to lack of notice as required pursuant to Local Rule 3316.

23CV057001: LOPEZ vs STEVENSON 07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Joshua David Brysk (Attorney) in Department 24 Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Rebekah Evenson The Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Joshua David Brysk (Attorney) scheduled for 07/25/2024 is continued to 08/01/2024 at 09:00 AM in Department 24 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse . The unopposed Motion by Joshua Brysk to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff is CONTINUED to August 1, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 24. Brysk’s proposed order submitted with the moving papers (1) does not list his client’s address in paragraph 6, and (2) indicates a “next scheduled hearing” that has already passed (in paragraph 7.) By no later than July 25, Brysk shall lodge with the clerk’s office an amended proposed order that (1) includes his client’s address and phone number, and (2) correctly indicates the next scheduled hearing (the Initial Case Management Conference on September 24, 2024.) Brysk shall serve notice of entry of this order on his client, and file proof of service by July 26.

22CV007315: SAETERN vs SINGH, et al. 07/26/2024 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial filed by NAI Northern California (Cross- Defendant) + in Department 1B Tentative Ruling - 07/24/2024 Sandra Bean Please see the tentative ruling on the demurrer.

Case Number: 22LBCV00731 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: S27 This Court has, in the past six to nine months, seen a dramatic increase in motions to compel further responses and motions to compel PMK depositions in lemon law cases. Similar issues are presented on all of the motions, and the attorneys for both parties fail and refuse to meet and confer in good faith in light of this Courts prior rulings in order to resolve issues relating to each case. The Courts docket has been inundated with these motions, with discovery motions in lemon law cases often taking up more than five motion hearing slots in a week. The Court finds Counsel, with the assistance of this Courts prior rulings, can easily resolve the issues on these discovery motions. The Court has ruled on discovery motions relating to PMK depositions involving the instant defendant, Ford Motor Company, in the following cases (among others): 22LBCV00456 22LBCV00761 The Court has read and considered Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Superior Court (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 326, 331-334, wherein the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts award of sanctions against BOTH attorneys on the case, which sanctions were ordered payable to the other party directly. The Court finds the attorneys in these lemon law cases are acting in a way that does not benefit their clients, constantly incurring attorneys fees in connection with discovery disputes when they are already aware of how the Court will rule on the motions. The Court notes that these parties have a hearing on a summary judgment motion set for 9/05/24. The hearing on this motion is continued to 9/05/24, to be heard concurrently with the summary judgment motion. The Court expects Counsel to meet and confer, with this Courts prior rulings in mind (rulings by other trial courts are not relevant and should not be used in the meet and confer discussion). If Counsel are unable to resolve all of their issues prior to the continued hearing on the motion, they must file a joint statement of items that remain in dispute. The joint statement must list each discovery item in dispute, the most current response to that item, and each partys statement of why a further response should or should not be ordered. The joint statement must make arguments relevant only to the item in dispute, not to the other items, so the Court can easily and quickly rule on each item. The joint statement is due at least two weeks prior to the continued hearing date. If the parties resolve their issues, they must take the motion off calendar using the online reservation system. If they are unable to resolve their issues, they must also file short (no more than five pages) briefs and declarations detailing their efforts to meet and confer and making any argument against imposition of sanctions that they wish to articulate. The briefs and declarations are also due at least two weeks prior to the continued hearing date. 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.

CV-24-003735 – ENRIQUEZ, HECTOR vs SPRUELL, JAMIKA – Defendant’s Motion for leave to File-Cross-Complaint - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion for leave to file her cross-complaint. Defendant is ordered to file a copy of the proposed cross-complaint (attached as Exhibit 1 to the 6/27/24 Declaration of Megan D. Johnson) within five court days. The cross-complaint shall be served by August 30, 2024. Defendant is further ordered to submit a proposed order that comports with this ruling within five court days. Due to the interruption of telephone service as a result of an outage, any party requesting a hearing must make the request via email to the court clerk. If V-Court is not available and an in-person appearance is not possible, appearance must be via Zoom. Sign-up information for Zoom will be available on the court’s website.