LOZADA, RACHEL ROMERO V. KEPLEY, DON ET AL

Judge Mosbarger – Law & Motion – Wednesday, April 15, 2026 @ 9:00 AM TENTATIVE RULINGS **This calendar will be heard by Judge Benson**

1-2. 24CV02342 LOZADA, RACHEL ROMERO V. KEPLEY, DON ET AL EVENTS: (1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (2) Case Management Conference *Special Set There is no proof of service in the Court’s file therefore the Court cannot confirm whether notice complies with Code of Civil Procedure §1005. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. However, even if the Court were to reach the merits of the Motion, which although titled a “Motion to Dismiss” appears to be in substance, a Demurrer, the Court finds as follows: Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. Code of Civil Procedure §430.41. Here, there is no evidence that Defendant complied with this requirement. Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure §430.40 provides that “(a) A person against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may, within 30 days after service of the complaint or cross-complaint, demur to the complaint or cross-complaint.” Here, the operative Complaint was filed and served on February 3, 2026, and therefore the instant Motion, filed 55 days later, on March 30, 2026, is untimely. Therefore, the Motion is denied on these additional grounds as well. The Court will conduct a Case Management Conference, and the parties are to appear. However, this is not an invitation to present oral argument in regard to the Motion to Dismiss. If the parties wish to argue the tentative ruling, they must comply with Butte County Local Rule 2.9 and California Rules of Court Rule 3.1308(a)(1). In regard to the Case Management Conference, the Court will hear from parties as to whether they are ready to set the matter for trial, or if they wish to set the matter out for a further Case Management Conference.

3. 25CV00439 TBF FINANCIAL I, LLC V. GREASE MONKEY TRUCK REPAIR, INC ET AL EVENT: Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Defendant Mohammad Assad Khan, Striking his Answer Defendant Mohammad Assad Khan (“Defendant” herein) failed to comply with the Court's September 24, 2025 Order compelling Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests and pay $1,863.75 in monetary sanctions; Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s December 30, 2025 Order again compelling Defendant to provide discovery responses and pay the aforementioned sanctions; and Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s February 4, 2026 Order to Meet and Confer about providing Plaintiff with the outstanding discovery responses. The Court finds that there has now