SPANNER INVESTMENTS INC. vs PISCANO, et al.

26CV001703: SPANNER INVESTMENTS INC. vs PISCANO, et al. 07/13/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

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 Department 8C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-8380 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 8C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3906 2174. 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.

26CV001703: SPANNER INVESTMENTS INC. vs PISCANO, et al. 07/13/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

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 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.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice filed on May 20, 2026 is unopposed and granted.

Background

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV001703: SPANNER INVESTMENTS INC. vs PISCANO, et al. 07/13/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

On May 19, 2026, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying the present application on the basis that Plaintiff had not established that Piscano, the party against whom attachment is sought, is the alter ego of Pierce Wealth Partners Fund, the party to the agreements, so Plaintiff had not established the probable validity of a claim upon which attachment may be issued against Piscano. After the tentative ruling was issued but before the May 20, 2026 hearing, Plaintiff filed and served a supplemental declaration of Scott Spanner and a request for judicial notice aimed at addressing the Court’s conclusions in its tentative ruling.

At the May 20 hearing, the Court declined to consider the supplemental declaration and the request for judicial notice at that time, but continued the hearing so the documents could be considered. Later on May 20, after the hearing, Plaintiff filed and served an amended notice of application and hearing for writ of attachment and a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities. Although the supplemental memorandum was not expressly authorized, the Court appreciates Plaintiff’s explanation for the filing in the memorandum and thus as considered the filing in this ruling.[1] (See Code Civ.

Proc. § 484.090(d).)

Legal Standard

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.

Discussion

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV001703: SPANNER INVESTMENTS INC. vs PISCANO, et al. 07/13/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

Piscano, as evidence by a grant deed recorded in El Dorado County on March 1, 2019. (Sanders Decl., Exh. A.)

Attachment may be based on a breach of contract action. (Landry v. Marshall (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 170, 178; CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537, 540.) “The elements of breach of contract are ‘(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff.’” (Kumaraperu v. Feldsted (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 60, 70.)

Plaintiff’s original application establishes the elements of breach of contract. Plaintiff has shown that although it 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’s original application also establishes that it received $36,912.00 in the form of monthly payments from Pierce Wealth Partners Fund before the payments stopped. Subtracting this amount from the initial investment of $388,000.00, Plaintiff has lost possession and use of $351,088.00.

Through its supplemental filings, Plaintiff seeks to establish that Pierce Wealth Partners Fund is the alter ego of Piscano such that Piscano is personally liable on the agreements. A finding that a person is the alter ego of a corporation “makes the alter ego liable for the obligations of the corporation.” (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 409.) To establish that a person is an alter ego of a corporation, the plaintiff must show “(1) such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its equitable owner that no separation actually exists, and (2) an inequitable result if the acts in question are treated as those of the corporation alone.” (Id. at p. 417.)

Several factors may be considered in applying these elements, including the commingling of funds and assets, the conduct of the individual in treating the corporation’s assets as his own, the lack of compliance with corporate rules and formalities, undercapitalization of the corporation, and the use of the corporation as a shell or conduit for a single venture or for the business of the individual. (Id. at pp. 417-418.) Other relevant factors may be considered, and no

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV001703: SPANNER INVESTMENTS INC. vs PISCANO, et al. 07/13/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

single factor is determinative. (Id. at p. 418.) To establish the inequitable result element, the plaintiff must show “some conduct [by the alleged alter egos] amounting to bad faith [that] makes it inequitable for the corporate owner to hide behind the corporate form.” (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 539.)

Plaintiff’s supplemental filings establish the probable validity of Plaintiff’s claim that Piscano is liable for breach of the agreements as the alter ego of Pierce Wealth Partners Fund. On the unity of interest element, Plaintiff submits evidence showing that Pierce Wealth Partners Fund is registered in California as an out-of-state legal entity and that its status in California has been forfeited since 2015. (See RJN, Exh. A; the Court’s review of the California Secretary of State’s business search results for Pierce Wealth Partners Fund confirms this information.)

Thus, at the time it entered into the agreements with Plaintiff, and for nearly a decade before that, Pierce Wealth Partners Fund was not legally permitted to operate in California. This suggests that the entity served as a conduit for Piscano’s business dealings. (See Lopez v. Escamilla (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 646, 655.) Plaintiff also submits a summary of its bank records for the ten payments it did receive pursuant to the agreements. (See Spanner Supp. Decl., ¶ 4.) Nine of those payments are described as “FED WIRE TRANSFER CREDIT” followed by a series of numbers, while one payment is described as “CTX PIERCE WEALTH PA SENDER.” (Spanner Supp.

Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff contends that these descripts “don’t show a consistent, transparent originating payment source in the LLC,” which suggests that “Piscano personally controlled payment mechanics in connection with an account not associated with the LLC, rather than acting through a clearly separate and regularly maintained entity.” (Supp. MPA, p. 5:9-13.) The Court agrees with the implication suggested by Plaintiff. Finally, Plaintiff’s original application and its supplemental filings include evidence that Piscano pitched the investment to Plaintiff himself and that he holds himself out, both with respect to this transaction and in general, as the originator of the investment strategy. (Spanner Decl., ¶¶ 4-5; Supp.

Spanner Decl., ¶ 3.)

On the inequitable result element, Plaintiff contends that the agreements are conduits of Piscano’s scheme, with Pierce Wealth Partners Fund being the party on the agreements as part of that scheme. Plaintiff points to the correspondence it received from Revenued LLC stating that Plaintiff may owe money to Pierce Wealth Partners Fund, which Plaintiff contends shows Piscano used the investments he received from Plaintiff and others to show an incoming stream of payments to Pierce Wealth Partners Fund.

Plaintiff also points to the fact that it never received deeds or proof of Pierce Wealth Partners Fund’s ownership in the underlying properties that were the subject of the agreements, and that Piscano never produced evidence that the business entity that was to be created pursuant to the agreements was ever actually formed. The Court agrees that these factors support a finding of inequitable result.

In sum, Plaintiff has established the probable validity of his breach of contract claim and that Piscano is liable on the contracts as the alter ego of Pierce Wealth Partners Fund.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV001703: SPANNER INVESTMENTS INC. vs PISCANO, et al. 07/13/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

Disposition

Plaintiff’s application for writ of attachment is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is directed to file an undertaking in the amount of $10,000. (Code Civ. Proc. § 489.220.) Upon the filing of the undertaking, the Court will sign the writ of attachment submitted with the application.

[1] The Court notes that the supplemental documents were served electronically on Piscano at

stephan@stephanpiscano.com. Electronic service on an unrepresented party is permitted only if the unrepresented party has consented to receive electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(c).) The Court finds that Piscano manifested consent to receive electronic service when he opposed Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the hearing on this application, which Plaintiff filed and served electronically on May 4, 2026. Thus, Plaintiff has established effective service of the supplemental documents on Piscano.

Additionally, although the proofs of service identify the party served as Piscano, and not Pierce Wealth Partners Fund, the Court finds that service is effective on Pierce Wealth Partners Fund as well, since the proof of service for Plaintiff’s ex parte application provides the same email address as that used for Piscano. Finally, the Court also notes that the supplemental documents were not served on Defendant in pro per Richard Anthony Campbell (“Campbell”), who filed an Answer on March 5, 2026.

A defendant who has appeared in an action is entitled to notice of all subsequent proceedings. However, at least in the context of a motion for new trial, “[t]he failure to serve a given party will not deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant the motion in so far as it can be granted without affecting the rights of the party not served.” (Caruthers Bldg. Co. v. Johnson (1916) 174 Cal. 20, 24.) Campbell was served with the original application papers via mail. The Court finds that since Campbell received notice of the application with the original application papers, and since the application does not seek attachment of any property in which Campbell appears to have any interest, the Court can reach the merits of the application, notwithstanding failure to serve the supplemental documents on Campbell.