Request for Order (RFO) seeking joinder of third party; finding of breach of fiduciary duty; set aside property transfer; attorney's fees
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 2, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
2. JOSHUA KHOSHSEFAT V. HEIDI KHOSHEFAT 24FL0682
On July 30, 2025, Respondent filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking a variety of orders as stated therein. She filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities concurrently therewith.
A Declaration Re Diligence was filed on October 20th evidencing attempted service of process on Jane Yeun Sook Khoshsefat. Another was filed on October 23rd.
There is no Proof of Service for the RFO, however, on October 24th, Petitioner filed and served a Responsive Declaration to Motion for Joinder and a Responsive Declaration to Request for Order thereby waiving any potential defect in service.
Respondent asks that the court grant joinder of Jane Yeun Sook Khoshsefat. She asks for a finding that Petitioner breached his fiduciary duty on several occasions and that the court set aside the transfer of title to the community property Lamborghini. She requests title to the Lamborghini be put in the names of both parties. Finally, she requests attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Family Code § 1101 and § 271.
Petitioner opposes the request for joinder and offers several alternatives.
Given that the Lamborghini was purchased during the marriage and title was held in the family trust prior to transfer, title to the Lamborghini is ordered to be placed in the names of both parties pending trial on the issue of property division. The court is reserving jurisdiction to make a finding that Petitioner breached his fiduciary duty and award sanctions pursuant to Family Code § 1101 and/or Family Code § 271.
Regarding the joinder, “[t]he court may order that a person be joined as a party to the proceeding if the court finds that it would be appropriate to determine the particular issue in the proceeding and that the person to be joined as a party is either indispensable for the court to make an order about that issue or is necessary to the enforcement of any judgment rendered on that issue.” Cal. Rule Ct. 5.24(e)(2).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
After reviewing the pleadings, it is unclear to the court whether Mrs. Khoshsefat is an indispensable party. Transferring title to the Lamborghini back to the parties resolves the need for joinder in that regard. However, there is still the outstanding issue of deposits Petitioner made to his mother. It is unclear to the court if Respondent has been able to obtain all necessary records via subpoena or if Petitioner and his mother have objected to any such subpoenas. It is further unclear if the community estate is sufficient to cover any
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 2, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
improper transfers that were made or if joinder of Mrs. Khoshsefat is necessary to enforce any such judgment. The parties are ordered to appear on this issue.
Respondent is directed to prepare the Findings and Orders After Hearing (FOAH), however this order is effective immediately upon the court’s adoption of the tentative ruling and is not conditioned on the preparation of the FOAH.
TENTATIVE RULING #2: TITLE TO THE LAMBORGHINI IS ORDERED TO BE PLACED IN THE NAMES OF BOTH PARTIES PENDING TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF PROPERTY DIVISION. THE COURT IS RESERVING JURISDICTION TO MAKE A FINDING THAT PETITIONER BREACHED HIS FIDUCIARY DUTY AND AWARD SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FAMILY CODE § 1101 AND/OR FAMILY CODE § 271.
THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR ON THE ISSUE OF JOINDER.
RESPONDENT IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS AND ORDERS AFTER HEARING (FOAH), HOWEVER THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE COURT’S ADOPTION OF THE TENTATIVE RULING AND IS NOT CONDITIONED ON THE PREPARATION OF THE FOAH.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.