BETHANY LIOU, ET AL VS. JON O. FREEMAN, ET AL

6/25/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 10 of 25

2:00 PM LINE: 5 25-CIV-04772 BETHANY LIOU, ET AL VS. JON O. FREEMAN, ET AL

BETHANY LIOU PRO SE JON O. FREEMAN SABAA GHOMASHCHI

DEFENDANTS SHAFIQ TAYMUREE AND STONECREST FINANCIAL, INC’S MOTION FOR ISSUE AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, the Motion for Imposition of Monetary Sanctions by Defendants Stonecrest Financial, Inc., Secured Income Fund-II, LLC, PLM Lender Services, Inc., Jon O. Freeman, and Shafiq Taymuree (“Defendants”) against Plaintiffs Bethany Liou, Grande Oak, LLC, and Grande, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) is CONTINUED to October 8, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 2 for Defendants to serve Plaintiffs with a copy of the motion and supporting papers.

On December 10, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. At that time, Defendants had not filed or served this Motion for Sanctions, and the hearing on this motion was not included in the proposed order relieving counsel. On December 17, 2025, Defendants filed this Motion for Sanctions and properly served it on Plaintiffs’ counsel, who was then counsel of record. However, on December 19, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s application to be relieved as counsel. The order relieving counsel does not identify this Motion for Sanctions or its hearing date. As a result, there is no evidence that Plaintiffs, who are now in propria persona, have notice of this hearing. No opposition has been filed or served.

Defendants shall serve Plaintiffs with the Motion for Sanctions and all supporting papers no later than July 1, 2026, and shall file proof of service with the Court at least five court days before the continued hearing date.

Plaintiffs may file and serve an opposition to the motion no later than nine court days before the continued hearing date. Although Plaintiff Bethany Liou may represent herself in this action, Plaintiffs Grande Oak, LLC, and Grande, LLC are limited liability companies and must be represented by licensed counsel to proceed in this action. (See CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145, 1149 [corporation must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before a court, and failure to be represented by counsel is a curable defect]; see also Prato v. Gioia (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 651, 663 [LLC/corporate entity could not represent itself or appear through an individual].)

Defendants may file and serve any reply no later than five court days before the continued hearing date.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendants shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and shall provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have

6/25/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 11 of 25

appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The Court alerts the parties to Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) regarding the wording of proposed orders.