SPANNER INVESTMENTS INC. vs PISCANO, et al.

26CV001703: SPANNER INVESTMENTS INC. vs PISCANO, et al. 05/20/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16039062174

26CV001703: SPANNER INVESTMENTS INC. vs PISCANO, et al. 05/20/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C 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. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Plaintiff Spanner Investments, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) application for writ of attachment against Defendant in pro per Stephan Evrard Piscano (“Piscano”) is UNOPPOSED and ruled upon as follows.

The notice of hearing does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Piscano and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Piscano prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV001703: SPANNER INVESTMENTS INC. vs PISCANO, et al. 05/20/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

Plaintiff filed this action on January 26, 2026 alleging 10 causes of action: (1) false promise; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) conversion; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) breach of contract; (6) violation of Corporations Code section 25110; (7) violation of Corporations Code section 25401; (8) violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200; (9) violation of Business & Professions Code section 17500; and (10) money had and received. Plaintiff alleges that Piscano and his codefendant Richard Campbell extracted nearly $400,000 from Plaintiff through a Ponzi scheme under the guise of offering fractional ownership interests in three vacation rental properties.

Plaintiff alleges that between 2024 and 2025, it executed three Partnership Agreements with Piscano’s entity, Defendant Pierce Wealth Partners Fund #1 LLC (“Pierce Wealth Partners Fund”), to invest in the three properties. The agreements stated that in exchange for the investment, Plaintiff was to receive a deeded ownership interest in the three properties, was to be a partner with certain voting rights in the apparent business venture, was to receive a security interest in each property, and was to receive monthly income from each property in fixed amounts.

Plaintiff alleges that Piscano is the sole owner and alter ego of Pierce Wealth Partners Fund.

Plaintiff’s application establishes that although Plaintiff initially received monthly payouts, those ceased after October of 2025, and Plaintiff did not receive a conveyance instrument showing proof of ownership in any property or any document showing a security interest, and was not invited to participate in any meetings or actions related to the ongoing venture. Nor has Plaintiff received independent verification that Piscano actually maintains an ownership interest in the properties or that they are being operated for any income-producing purpose.

Additionally, in October of 2025, Plaintiff received correspondence from an entity called Revenued LLC, which represented that it was a secured creditor of Pierce Wealth Partners Fund, that it had purchased accounts receivable from Pierce Wealth Partners Fund for $375,894.50, that Pierce Wealth Partners Fund had defaulted on its obligation in connection with this purchase, and that Plaintiff may have a balance owed to Pierce Wealth Partners Fund. The letter asked Plaintiff to redirect any payments on said balance to Revenued LLC.

Plaintiff does not owe any money to Pierce Wealth Partners Fund or Piscano.

Plaintiff received $36,912.00 in the form of monthly payments from Pierce Wealth Partners Fund. Subtracting this amount from the initial investment of $388,000.00, Plaintiff has lost possession and use of $351,088.00.

Plaintiff seeks a right to attach order and a writ of attachment on real property commonly known as 1377 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, California 96150. The property is purportedly owned by Piscano, as evidence by a grant deed recorded in El Dorado County on March 1, 2019. (Sanders Decl., Exh. A.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV001703: SPANNER INVESTMENTS INC. vs PISCANO, et al. 05/20/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

An attachment may be issued only in an action on a claim for money, based upon a contract, express or implied, where the total amount of the claim or claims is a fixed or readily ascertainable amount not less than $500, exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney’s fees, which arises out of the conduct by the defendant of a trade, business, or profession. (Code Civ. Proc. § 483.010.) A writ of attachment “shall be issued” if the following elements are satisfied: “(1) the claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued; (2) the plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based; (3) the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery of the claim upon which the attachment is based; and (4) the amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 484.090(a)(1)-(4).) An application for writ of attachment “shall be supported by an affidavit showing that the plaintiff on the facts presented would be entitled to a judgment on the claim upon which the attachment is based.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 484.030.)

Oppositions to applications for writs of attachment are due five court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 484.060(a).) “If the defendant fails to file a notice of opposition within the time prescribed, the defendant shall not be permitted to oppose the issuance of the order.” (Ibid.) Piscano has not filed an opposition.

Plaintiff’s application fails to establish the probable validity of a claim upon which attachment may be issued against Piscano, the owner of the subject property upon which Plaintiff seeks attachment. The breach of contract cause of action is based on contracts entered into between Plaintiff and Pierce Wealth Partners Fund. (Spanner Decl., Exhs. A-C.) Piscano is not a party to the contracts. Indeed, the Complaint acknowledges this in that it alleges that Plaintiff “and Piscano via alter ego Pierce Wealth Partners Fund” entered into the subject agreements. (Complaint, ¶ 43.)

Plaintiff’s application does not include any evidence establishing that Pierce Wealth Partners Fund is Piscano’s alter ego. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations in its unverified Complaint are insufficient to meet its burden. (Code Civ. Proc. § 484.030; see Lydig Construction, Inc. v. Martinez Steel Corp. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 937, 944.) Therefore, Plaintiff has not established Piscano’s liability on the breach of contract claim, and thus an attachment order cannot be issued against Piscano’s property.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application for writ of attachment is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)