CLAIM OF: ADRIAN KUSHNER

25CV009409: CLAIM OF: ADRIAN KUSHNER 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Striking Claim in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

25CV009409: CLAIM OF: ADRIAN KUSHNER 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Striking Claim in Department 8D

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE OR GORDON D. SCHABER COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION.***

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner People of the State of California’s (“Petitioner”) Motion for Order Striking Claim of Real Party in Interest Adrian Kushner (“Real Party”) for failure to comply with this Court’s December 17, 2025 Order compelling responses to requests for production of documents is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

Real Party opposed civil forfeiture of assets by filing a claim on April 12, 2025. This Court’s December 17, 2025 Order required Real Party to provide, no later than January 14, 2026, responses to Petitioner’s request for production of documents seeking information relevant to Real Party’s claim opposing forfeiture. According to the moving papers, Real Party has failed to provide responses to the requests for production of documents or to contact Petitioner. Petitioner now seeks an order imposing a terminating sanction striking Real Party’s claim.

Real Party has failed to comply with the Court’s order. The Court finds that the failure to comply is willful, justifying a terminating sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Petitioner has been prejudiced by Real Party’s failure in that it cannot perform its required analysis of legitimate versus illegitimate income without the requested discovery. (People v. $4,503 U.S. Currency (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1743, 1749.)

Although no California cases have been decided precisely on this point, a federal court has upheld striking a claim for failure to comply with discovery orders. (United States v. Reyes (6th Cir. 2002) 307 F.3d 451, 458.) Dismissal was not an abuse of discretion when the party has the ability to but does not comply with a discovery order. (Ibid.) Federal cases may properly be cited as persuasive authority. Federal case law is instructive in the area of civil forfeiture because the California forfeiture statute is patterned after federal statutes. (Compare Health & Saf. Code, § 11470 et seq., with 21 U.S.C. § 881.) Further, at least one California appellate opinion has upheld similar

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV009409: CLAIM OF: ADRIAN KUSHNER 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Striking Claim in Department 8D

consequences for willful refusal to comply with discovery requests in civil forfeiture actions. (People v. $4,503 U.S. Currency, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1748–1749.)

The civil forfeiture statutes explicitly incorporate the Code of Civil Procedure, which includes the Civil Discovery Act. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11488.5, subd. (c)(3).) Real Party’s failure to respond to discovery and failure to comply with the Court’s order constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) In ordering sanctions, the Court has broad discretion to select the appropriate sanction for the factual circumstances. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of N.Y., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

Additionally, Real Party has filed no opposition to this motion. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.)

Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. No judgment is entered at this time. The claim is stricken and the clerk is ordered to enter default on the petition. Petitioner is directed to proceed with default judgment prove-up on the Petition pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 11488.5(b)(1).

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the motion.