Complainants in the defense against Preciado’s Cross-Complaint, and/or of Cross-Complainants’ Chicago Cross-Complaint. As between the Chicago Cross-Complainants and Cupp, there are no facts establishing the existence of a controversy based upon the Preciado Cross-Complaint. IV.

Conclusion

Cupp’s demurrer to the Chicago Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED. The Chicago Cross- Complainants’ request leave to amend is GRANTED. Cupp is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

6. 25CV08769, Cupp v. Adams

(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. OSCAR A. PARDO)

IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.

19. PLEASE USE DEPT. 19’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).

IF THERE ARE ANY REQUESTS TO APPEAR, THEY WILL BE HEARD ON FRIDAY, JULY 24, AT 9:00 A.M. IN DEPT.

19.

Introduction

Defendant Mark Adams (“Adams”) demurs to the Amended Petition of Ronald Cupp (“Cupp”) on the grounds of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, for lack of jurisdiction, that the Amended Petition seeks to confirm a void arbitration award, that Adams is not bound by any valid arbitration agreement, and that Petitioner Cupp lacks legal capacity to sue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(b). The demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

II.

Cupp’s Amended Petition

Petitioner Cupp filed his Amended Petition on December 29, 2025. The Amended Petition seeks to confirm an arbitration award entered on May 29, 2025, by three arbitrators in the matter of Nature’s Way 12778 Dupont Road, LLC v. Mark Adam (“Award”). Cupp alleges he is the assignee of the Award.

A. The Arbitration Award

The Award is attached to the Amended Petition and states that Nature’s Way 12779 Dupont Road, LLC (“LLC”) is the holder of the dominant estate and as of May 25, 2022, Adams is the court-appointed title-holder-in-fact of the servient estate. Further possessory rights were granted to Adams on February 29, 2024. The dispute involved an express grant easement and a lease agreement. The LLC alleged Adams interfered with the use and enjoyment of the easement, caused a nuisance, and breached the terms of a lease contract related to the easement.

The LLC sought liquidated damages and damages. The arbitrators found that the LLC holds an express easement over property located at 12778 Dupont Road in Sebastopol. The contract between tenant Michael Louis Castagnola (“Castagnola”), grantor, and landlord LLC, grantee, was entered into on February 12, 2022, recorded on February 22, 2024, and updated on August 6, 2024. The explicit easement is for the purpose of enjoying the rights, benefits, and uses of the property in the same manner as any leaseholding tenant would have while also conserving several endangered local species.

The Award states Adams became subject to the terms of the easement agreement, which is binding upon all future titleholders, upon becoming the title-holder-in-fact of the property and the court-appointed receiver on May 25, 2022. The Award further states that Adams has taken actions that violate the terms of the lease. “On February 29, 2024, Adams obtained three Writs of Possession, which failed to specify the terms of the easement or the lease. Adams used the writs to evict lawful tenants of the claimant, remove property, prevent collection of rents and prevent access.

These actions have directly interfered with the Claimant's ability to use the lease in the manner contemplated by the contract.” (Award, ¶16.) “The Respondent's actions, which included evicting the lawful tenant and sub-tenants of Nature's Way, LLC, removing property, changing locks, preventing access to the rental properties, preventing collection of rents, and preventing access to the structures and the property, constitutes a clear breach of these contractual obligations.” (Id., ¶17.) The June 3, 2025, Award ordered that the lease agreement between the LLC and its tenant is binding upon all titleholders, including Adams.

It confirmed the existence of an express grant easement in the LLC’s favor, which is also binding upon all titleholders. It determined Adams breached the lease and caused a nuisance. The Award ordered liquidated damages in the LLC’s favor in the amount of $250,000; damages of $7,500 for each month of lost rents beginning March 1, 2024; reconstruction costs of $358,312.94; and $800 as the costs of arbitration.

B. 9/25 Order Vacating the Award

In his request for judicial notice, Adams attaches a copy of the September 5, 2025, Amended Order in SCV-265714, County of Sonoma v. Michael L. Castagnola, Trustee of the Michael L. Castagnola Revocable Trust, et al. (“9/25 Order”). Adams argues that the 9/25 Order vacated the Award. The 9/25 Order was entered after the Hon. Oscar A. Pardo considered Adams’ Thirteen Report of Receiver, the Declaration of Mark Adams, the Supplement to the Thirteenth Report of Receiver, and all other oral and documentary evidence presented in connection with the hearing of the Report. (RJN, Exhibit B, ¶2.)

The 9/25 Order states: “The June 3, 2025 Arbitration Award issued in the matter of Nature’s Way 12778 Dupont Road, LLC v. Mark Adams is hereby vacated in its entirety pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1286.2.” (RJN, Exhibit B, ¶2.) In opposition, Cupp argues various reasons why the 9/25 Order should be declared ineffective or invalid as to the LLC and Cupp. No authority is cited that this court may revive an arbitration award that has been invalidated in its entirety in another action.

Here, Cupp never obtained leave to sue Adams in his capacity as a court-appointed receiver, which is required. (Ostrowski v. Miller (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 79, 84.) Thus, there can be no valid arbitration award as to Adams.

III.

Conclusion

Because the Award has been vacated in its entirety and Cupp did not obtain leave to sue Adams in his capacity as a court-appointed receiver, the Amended Petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Adams as it is based entirely upon the vacated Award. Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Petitioner Ron Cupp (“Petitioner”) moves for an order granting his First Amended Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“FAP”). Due to the ruling on the demurrer showing no valid award against Adams, the motion is DENIED. Adams is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

7. 25CV08885. Vargas Flaherty v. Kerston 9