TYLER, MATHEW V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

the indemnitor is contractually or equitably responsible. See, e.g., Expressions at Rancho Niguel Assn. v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1139. Here, the Court finds the allegations in the Cross-Complaint sufficient, and the Demurrer is overruled on this basis as well. The Demurrer is overruled in its entirety. Counsel for the County shall submit a form of order consistent with this ruling within two weeks and Teichert shall file its Answer to the Cross-Complaint within 10 days’ notice of this order.

2-4. 25CV02798 TYLER, MATHEW V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL EVENTS: (1) State Defendants’ Demurrer (2) Demurrer to Complaint by Former Senator Dahle, Assembly Member Gallagher, Deputy Legislative Counsel Benjamin Herzberger, and the Office of Legislative Counsel (3) Plaintiff’s Request for Extension or Continuation, and Plaintiff Motion to Withdrawal or Retract Filings The Court has received and reviewed the "Plaintiff Request for Extension or Continuation, and Plaintiff Motion to Withdrawal or Retract Filings" filed by Plaintiff Mathew Tyler on April 22, 2026. Based thereon: (1) the hearings on Defendants' Demurrers are continued one final time to June 10, 2026 at 9:00 AM; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, although never filed with the Court, is withdrawn; (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin the Illegal Expenditure of Public Funds is withdrawn, and the hearing on May 6, 2026 is vacated; (4) if Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint is not filed and served fourteen (14) days prior to the next hearing date, but no later than 4:00 PM on May 27, 2026, the Court's prior Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint, dated January 14, 2026 shall be vacated and stricken, with a new Order entered denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint, at which time the Defendants will have the ability to file a responsive pleading as to the original Complaint.

5. 26CV00548 WILEY, BRIAN ET AL V. HAMILTON-WILEY, DEBORAH ET AL EVENT: Demurrer to Complaint by Defendant Deborah Hamilton-Wiley California law requires strict compliance with the method for changing a beneficiary designation. Estate of MacDonald (1990) 51 Cal.3d 262, 272; Cook v. Cook (1941) 17 Cal.2d 639, 644. However, there are exceptions to the general rule, which the Court finds applicable here. See, Watenpaugh v. State Teachers' Retirement System (1959) 51 Cal.2d 675 [“It has been held that literal compliance with such regulations is not necessary to obtain a change of beneficiary where it is established that there was an intention to change and there was some affirmative action evidencing the exercise of the right to change (citations omitted).”]; and Cook v. Cook (1941) 17 Cal.2d 639, 648-649.

2|Page