140 BLUE RAVINE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs PHOENIX MOTOR, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al.

23CV010098: 140 BLUE RAVINE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs PHOENIX MOTOR, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 10/23/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint in Department 53

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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 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 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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 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

23CV010098: 140 BLUE RAVINE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs PHOENIX MOTOR, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 10/23/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint in Department 53

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:

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant 140 Blue Ravine, LLC’s (“Blue Ravine”) motion to strike Defendants and Cross-Complainants Phoenix Motor, Inc. and SPI Solar, Inc.’s (jointly, “Phoenix Motor”) “verified” Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

Phoenix Motor’s opposition was belatedly filed on October 14, 2025, four days after the opposition deadline. However, the Court, in its discretion, considered the arguments raised in the opposition notwithstanding Phoenix Motor’s failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

This action arises from a dispute regarding a commercial lease entered into between the parties. Blue Ravine filed its operative second amended complaint on December 27, 2024. On March 7, 2025, Phoenix Motor filed its Cross-Complaint.

Blue Ravine moves to strike the Cross-Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 435 and 436, subdivision (b), and Corporations Code section 2203, subdivision (c), on the basis that the Cross-Complaint is not filed in conformity with California law since (1) it is not properly verified, and (2) Phoenix Motor is not registered to do business in California and therefore does not have standing to bring suit in California. As to this latter argument, Blue Ravine has filed a request for judicial notice that purports to submit for judicial notice a “June 30, 2025 screengrab of the Secretary of State’s business search result for Phoenix Motor, Inc.,” and the corresponding “fact that Phoenix Motor, Inc. is not registered to do business in California.” (Request for Judicial Notice at 2:4-6; Ex. 1.)

As to Blue Ravine’s request for judicial notice, it is GRANTED only insofar as Blue Ravine requests judicial notice of the existence of March 7, 2025 “Verified Cross- Complaint” filed in this action and that it does not include any signed verification page. (See Evid. Code § 451, subd. (a); § 452, sub. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.) As to the balance of Blue Ravine’s request for judicial notice, it is DENIED as it is not subject to judicial notice under the section

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010098: 140 BLUE RAVINE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs PHOENIX MOTOR, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 10/23/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint in Department 53

cited by Blue Ravine, which is Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d), nor it is supported by competent evidence for which judicial notice may be taken under Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (c) or (g).

In opposition, Phoenix Motor appears to concede that they have not filed verifications of the Cross-Complaint. Phoenix Motor states:

This office twice filed the ‘first amended cross complaint’ [hereinafter FAXC] but it was rejected for various reasons, which could not be determined based on the rejection notice. Defendants and this office are prepared to file any amended cross-complaint necessary to be compliant with the code of civil procedure, but has been unable to determine the defect based on the filing clerk’s rejections and correspondence with Nationwide.

(Opposition at 3:12-17.) Phoenix Motor also argues that Phoenix Motor, Inc. and SPI Solar, Inc. are related companies due to their shared parent company and managing agents and are alter egos. Phoenix Motor contends that because SPI Solar, Inc. has standing to maintain an action in California, Phoenix Motor, Inc. does as well.

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 437, subd. (a).) The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing. It should not be a procedural “line item veto.” (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.) “[T]he proper objection where a party fails to verify a pleading is a motion to strike.” (Perlman v. Municipal Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 568, 575.)

Phoenix Motor’s Cross-Complaint is entitled “DEFENDANTS PHOENIX MOTOR, INC. AND SPI SOLAR, INC.’S VERIFIED CROSS COMPLAINT FOR: (1) CONVERSION; (2) TRESPASS; (3) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS; (4) VIOLATIONS OF CAL CIV CODE § 1993.07; (5) NEGLIGENCE; AND (6) DECLARATORY RELIEF.” (Cross-Complaint, p. 1 [emphasis added].) Additionally, in opposition, Phoenix appears to concede that it intended to file an amended verified cross-complaint, but it was unable to do so. It is not clear from the Court’s records why the filing was rejected. Nevertheless, Phoenix Motor’s argument appears to concede no verification of its “verified” Cross-Complaint has been filed. Thus, the Cross-Complaint is subject to a motion to strike as it has not been filed in conformity with California law.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010098: 140 BLUE RAVINE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs PHOENIX MOTOR, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 10/23/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint in Department 53

Therefore, the motion to strike is granted on this basis with leave to amend.

The Court need not consider parties’ alternative argument regarding standing. To the extent the parties may have any disagreement regarding a future amended crosscomplaint, they remain required to meet and confer. While the Court makes no ruling on issues pertaining to standing, it notes that if any future motion or demurrer is brought based upon information outside the allegations themselves, a proper request for judicial notice must be made before any such information may be considered. Additionally, the Court notes that “alter ego is used to prevent a corporation from using its statutory separate corporate form as a shield from liability only where to recognize its corporate status would defeat the rights and equities of third parties; it is not a doctrine that allows the persons who actually control the corporation to disregard the corporate form.” (Webber v.

Inland Empire Investments (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 884, 901 [emphasis added].) The parties are advised to consider fully these and related principles in any future meet-and-confer effort.

Accordingly, Blue Ravine’s motion to strike is GRANTED with leave to amend.

Plaintiff may file and serve an amended cross-complaint by no later than November 13, 2025. Although not required by Court rule or statute, Phoenix Motor is directed to present a copy of this order when the amended cross-complaint is presented for filing. Blue Ravine to respond within 30 days if the amended complaint is personally served, 35 days if served by mail.

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.)