Regency Palms, LP vs. Riccobono

trial notice by the clerk’s office. Considering these facts, the Court will order the Plaintiff’s counsel to respond to the discovery request within 5 days. The Court will not issue sanctions against the Plaintiff. Counsel for both parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the pretrial date.

Given the amount of time for this motion and the need for discovery responses, the Court will advance and vacate the currently set pretrial and jury trial date and reset the pretrial hearing for June 26, 2026, at 8:30 AM in Department C61 and Jury Trial for June 29, 2026, at 8:30 AM in Department C61.

The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Answer (ROA 72). No opposition was filed by the Plaintiff. The Court grants the Defendant’s Leave to Amend First Amended Answer.

11 30-2026-01569971 The Court has read and considered the Defendants' Motion to Strike CJS Pinemeadows Complaint (ROA 32), the Complaint (ROA 2) and Plaintiff’s Opposition Apartments, L.P. vs. (ROA 39) . Gonzales The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Proof of Service of Summons (ROA 8, 10 & 14).

The Court DENIES the Motion to Strike Complaint.

California Code of Civil Procedure §435(b)(1) requires a motion to strike to be filed within the 10 business days of service of the summons and complaint. Under California Code of Civil Procedure §1014, a motion to strike is an appearance with the court; the Defendants are precluded from filing a motion to quash service following the filing of a Motion to Strike. Furthermore, California Code of Civil Procedure §435(d) does not extend time to file a demurrer. Therefore, because it has been well past the 10 business days following service of the Summons and Complaint on May 18 & 19, 2026, the Defendants are ordered to file an Answer within 5 calendar days.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.

12 30-2026-01565351 The Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Regency Palms, LP vs. the Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set No. (1), Riccobono Admitted and Conclusively Established (ROA 30).

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Deem the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set No. (1), Admitted and Conclusively Established is granted and that the truth of all specified matters, and the genuineness of all specified documents, in the First Set of Requests for Admission, propounded by Plaintiff and served on Defendant Donna Riccobono on May 21, 2026, be deemed admitted.

The Court orders the Defendant, Donna Riccobono, forthwith to pay a sanction in the amount of $176.58 to Plaintiff's Counsel. Given the Defendant’s court-approved fee waiver information and the Defendant’s disability status, in the interest of justice and equity, the Court will not impose

monetary sanctions at the rate requested by the Plaintiff. This sum shall be made payable to "SNS Law Group, LLP" within 10 business days of service of this order and shall be delivered via mail to the SNS Law Group, LLP, 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1420, Los Angeles, CA 90025. If any party is required to further enforce the terms herein, the party enforcing this Judgment shall be entitled to further attorney's fees and costs.

The Court Orders Plaintiff to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.

13 30-2026-01566479 As a threshold matter, Farnaz Rahimi Kashani, as Trustee of the ERK Living Kashani vs. Hogle Trust, filed this unlawful detainer complaint in pro per. Pursuant to California law established in Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724 and Ziegler v. Nickel (1998) 64 Cal.App. 4th 545, 547-549: Corporations, LLCs, and Trusts need to be represented by an attorney in civil proceedings.

The Court has read and considered the Motion to Substitute In As Real Party in Interest and Dismiss Action (ROA 18) and Notice of Related Case (ROA 34).

The Court has read and considered the Request for Judicial Notice filed by Real Party in Interest for Richard Huntington, Trustee of the 2014 Mehdi Rahumi Kashani Fard Trust. The Court takes Judicial Notice of Exhibit A-S.

Specifically, as to Exhibit R, in which Judge Susel Carrillo-Orellana on 3/30/2026 made findings as to the premises property located at 31053 Avenida de la Vista, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675. Judge Carrillo-Orellana found that Farnaz Rahimi Kashani was not the proper trustee when filing the unlawful detainer petition for the premises property at 31053 Avenida de la Vista, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675; Richard Huntington was the proper trustee of the premises.

The Court finds 31053 Avenida de la Vista, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 is the same property as the one indicated in Exhibit R. Res Judicata applies to this matter as a Court has already determined that Farnaz Rahimi Kashani does not have the right to file an unlawful detainer action regarding this property as Farnaz Rahimi Kashani is not the owner of the property and not the trustee of the property.

Farnaz Rahimi Kashani had no legal authority to file this unlawful detainer action regarding the premises at the address; therefore, the case is dismissed with prejudice.

14 30-2015-00803737 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Ocean Breeze Villas Renewal of Judgment (ROA 51) and Declaration in Support of the Motion vs. Floridia (ROA 52).

The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Application for and Renewal of Judgment (ROA 35), Proof of Service by Mail (ROA 41), Memorandum of Costs After Judgment (ROA 43), Writ of Execution (ROA 44), Writ of Possession Returned – Wholly Satisfied (ROA 22), Writ (07/11/2018 Issued) (ROA 32), and Declaration of Address Verification (ROA 47).